Comparison of blockchain frameworks for healthcare applications
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
Though a relatively new technology, blockchain has become a very trendy topic in recent times, thanks to bitcoin and other popular cryptocurrencies which are built on the blockchain. With features such as decentralized consensus and data immutability, blockchain transactions are known to be transparent, secure, and trustworthy. For these reasons, blockchain is increasingly being adopted in different industries and for diverse use cases, especially where security and trust are important concerns. Health care is one such industry that offers several use cases for applying blockchain technology. Even so, blockchain‐based healthcare applications have yet to become widespread. This is mostly because initial efforts were focused on developing blockchain frameworks for cryptocurrencies and not for general purpose applications, such as health care. Recently, general‐purpose blockchain frameworks, which may be used to develop healthcare applications, have begun to emerge. However, there is no consensus on which framework is most suitable for developing healthcare applications. In light of this, this paper compares the popular general‐purpose blockchain frameworks, vis‐a‐vis the requirements for healthcare systems, in order to guide health informatics researchers and practitioners in selecting the appropriate platform for developing and experimenting with blockchain‐based healthcare applications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it