MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890064903 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i4.1002

Design and operation of a distributed health data network

2018· article· en· W2890064903 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey S. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConfidentialityData qualityData governanceData scienceComputer securityProcess managementBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionSeveral large health data networks such as FDA Sentinel, PCORnet, and the Canadian Network of Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES) facilitate multi-site research using real-world electronic health data such administrative claims data, electronic health record data and registries. Experience in operation of mutliple health data networks will described. Objectives and ApproachOver the past 15 years substantial progress has been made in developing the optimal network operational design, governance, and technical architecture to facilitate the creation and operation of large-scale distributed health data networks. The design, architecture, and operation of a sustainable health data network requires balancing the needs of the network stakeholders such as funders, data sources, investigators, and regulatory bodies while enabling rapid and efficient use of data to support evidence generation and decision making. Important topics include protection of patient privacy, security, data autonomy, distributed analytics, data quality, and protection of confidential information. ResultsThe design and architecture of existing distributed health data networks provides guidance regarding the potential operational model for new networks and identifies areas of research to improve network functionality and capabilities. Most health data network adopt a common data model approach to facilitate multi-site querying and data quality assessment. This approach is coupled with distributed querying in which data partners maintain physical and operational control of their data. This design maximizes protection of confidential and proprietary information and minimizes the need to share patient-level data. Privacy-preserving distributed regression approaches and methods that obviate the need to share person-level data while generating robust results help to ensure network participation. Strong security and governance structures are also necessary for effective operation of a distributed network. Conclusion/ImplicationsDistributed health data networks offer the opportunity to use real-world data for public health surveillance and comparative safety and effectiveness research across large populations. The operational design, technical and analytic architecture, and governance models of networks drive their acceptance and success.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.748
GPT teacher head0.674
Teacher spread0.074 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207