MediChain<sup>TM</sup>: A Secure Decentralized Medical Data Asset Management System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The set of distributed ledger architectures known as blockchain is best known for cryptocurrency applications such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. These permissionless block chains are showing the potential to be disruptive to the financial services industry. Their broader adoption is likely to be limited by the maximum block size, the cost of the Proof of Work consensus mechanism, and the increasing size of any given chain overwhelming most of the participating nodes. These factors have led to many cryptocurrency blockchains to become centralized in the nodes with enough computing power and storage to be a dominant miner and validator. Permissioned chains operate in trusted environments and can, therefore, avoid the computationally expensive consensus mechanisms. Permissioned chains are still susceptible to asset storage demands and non-standard user interfaces that will impede their adoption. This paper describes an approach to addressing these limitations: permissioned blockchain that uses off-chain storage of the data assets and this is accessed through a standard browser and mobile app. The implementation in the Hyperledger framework is described as is an example use of patient-centered health data management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".