Deriving a Set of Privacy Specific Heuristics for the Assessment of PHRs (Personal Health Records)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the emergence of personal health record (PHR) platforms becoming more widely available, this research focused on the development of privacy heuristics to assess PHRs regarding privacy. Existing sets of heuristics are typically not application specific and do not address patient-centric privacy as a main concern prior to undergoing PHR procurement. A set of privacy specific heuristics were developed based on a scoping review of the literature. An internet-based commercially available, vendor specific PHR application was evaluated using the derived set of privacy specific heuristics. The proposed set of privacy specific derived heuristics is explored in detail in relation to ISO 29100. The assessment of the internet-based commercially available, vendor specific PHR application indicated numerous violations. These violations were noted within the study. It is argued that the new derived privacy heuristics should be used in addition to Nielsen's well-established set of heuristics. Privacy specific heuristics could be used to assess PHR portal system-level privacy mechanisms in the procurement process of a PHR application and may prove to be a beneficial form of assessment to prevent the selection of a PHR platform with a poor privacy specific interface design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".