Physician communication via Internet-enabled technology: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of Internet-enabled technology (information and communication technology such as smartphone applications) may enrich information exchange among providers and, consequently, improve health care delivery. The purpose of this systematic review was to gain a greater understanding of the role that Internet-enabled technology plays in enhancing communication among physicians. Studies were identified through a search in three electronic platforms: the Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library, ProQuest, and Web of Science. The search identified 5140 articles; of these, 21 met all inclusion criteria. In general, physicians were satisfied with Internet-enabled technology, but consensus was lacking regarding whether Internet-enabled technology improved efficiency or made a difference to clinical decision-making. Internet-enabled technology can play an important role in enhancing communication among physicians, but the extent of that benefit is influenced by (1) the impact of Internet-enabled technology on existing work practices, (2) the availability of adequate resources, and (3) the nature of institutional elements, such as privacy legislation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it