Adoption of high technology medical imaging and hospital quality and efficiency: Towards a conceptual framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measuring the value of medical imaging is challenging, in part, due to the lack of conceptual frameworks underlying potential mechanisms where value may be assessed. To address this gap, this article proposes a framework that builds on the large body of literature on quality of hospital care and the classic structure-process-outcome paradigm. The framework was also informed by the literature on adoption of technological innovations and introduces 2 distinct though related aspects of imaging technology not previously addressed specifically in the literature on quality of hospital care: adoption (a structural hospital characteristic) and use (an attribute of the process of care). The framework hypothesizes a 2-part causality where adoption is proposed to be a central, linking factor between hospital structural characteristics, market factors, and hospital outcomes (ie, quality and efficiency). The first part indicates that hospital structural characteristics and market factors influence or facilitate the adoption of high technology medical imaging within an institution. The presence of this technology, in turn, is hypothesized to improve the ability of the hospital to deliver high quality and efficient care. The second part describes this ability throughout 3 main mechanisms pointing to the importance of imaging use on patients, to the presence of staff and qualified care providers, and to some elements of organizational capacity capturing an enhanced clinical environment. The framework has the potential to assist empirical investigations of the value of adoption and use of medical imaging, and to advance understanding of the mechanisms that produce quality and efficiency in hospitals.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".