MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025511516 · doi:10.3233/shti190140

Context and Meaning in EHR Displays

2019· article· en· W3025511516 on OpenAlexaff
Craig Kuziemsky, Diane G. Schwartz, Subha Airan‐Javia, Ross Koppel

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Context (archaeology)Computer scienceWorld Wide WebPsychologyHistoryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many Electronic Health Record (EHRs) data displays are insensitive to their settings, contexts, and to clinicians' needs. Yet, the contexts in which the data are displayed critically affect EHR usability and patient safety. Medication prescribing is a complex task; especially sensitive to contextual variation in EHR displays as vast variations in formats and logic are often unnecessarily confusing, leading to unwanted cognitive burdens and medical errors. With examples of EHR screenshots, we illustrate contextual variations in medication and allergy displays across different EHR systems and implementations-noting often seemingly haphazard differences that can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207