MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619220478 · doi:10.4018/ijhisi.2017070103

Real-Time, Location-Based Patient-Device Association Management

2017· article· en· W2619220478 on OpenAlexaff
Raoufeh Rezaee, Malak Baslyman, Daniel Amyot, Alain Mouttham, Rana Chreyh, Glen Geiger

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Healthcare Information Systems and Informatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalCanadian Blood ServicesMontfort HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReal-time locating systemUSableComputer scienceMobile deviceReuseAssociation (psychology)Coding (social sciences)Real-time computingEmbedded systemOperating systemMultimediaEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hospitals need to accurately manage mobile devices (e.g., intravenous pumps) associated to their patients and health providers to ensure patient safety. Some hospitals have already invested substantially in real-time location system (RTLS) technology, a specific type of Internet of Things (IoT) application for indoor positioning, to manage mobile clinical devices. Objective: This paper investigates the reuse of RTLS systems to monitor patients and their assigned devices and to manage their connectivity automatically, in real time. Method: A system called Real-time Patient-Device Association and Disassociation (RPDAD) is designed, implemented, and tested in a hospital room and in a university laboratory. Results: RPDAD helps manage patient-device associations through a tablet application, with accurate suggestions for closest devices and automated detection of unexpected disassociations, resulting in real-time alerts. Conclusion: RPDAD offers a usable means of managing associations that does not depend on bar-coding technologies. It also helps amortize investments in RTLS.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Healthcare Information Systems and InformaticsSame topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207