MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604982680 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-742-9-249

A Survey of Standard Information Models for Clinical Decision Support Systems

2017· article· en· W2604982680 on OpenAlexaff
Abdul Roudsari

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDecision support systemClinical decision support systemArchetypeSoftware engineeringData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HL7 CDA, vMR, and openEHR archetypes have been utilized as standard information models for clinical decision support systems. Compared to openEHR archetypes, vMR typically requires less time to develop and extend which makes it a good fit for rapid prototyping and pilot projects, while openEHR archetypes handle the data and semantic specification better. Using CDA for clinical decision support systems is discouraged due to its complexity, steep learning curve, and potential safety issues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0140.022
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.320
GPT teacher head0.583
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207