Exploring the Design of Patient-Generated Data Visualizations
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
We were approached by a group of healthcare providers who are involved in the care of chronic patients looking for potential technologies to facilitate the process of reviewing patient-generated data during clinical visits. Aiming at understanding the healthcare providers' attitudes towards reviewing patient-generated data, we (1) conducted a focus group with a mixed group of healthcare providers. Next, to gain the patients' perspectives, we (2) interviewed eight chronic patients, collected a sample of their data and designed a series of visualizations representing patient data we collected. Last, we (3) sought feedback on the visualization designs from healthcare providers who requested this exploration. We found four factors shaping patient-generated data: data & context, patient's motivation, patient's time commitment, and patient's support circle. Informed by the results of our studies, we discussed the importance of designing patient-generated visualizations for individuals by considering both patient and healthcare provider rather than designing with the purpose of generalization and provided guidelines for designing future patient-generated data visualizations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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