MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038069856 · doi:10.5603/imh.2020.0018

Past, present, and future perspectives of telemedical assistance at sea: a systematic review

2020· review· en· W3038069856 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Maritime Health · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Navigation and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelemedicineScopusMEDLINEInclusion (mineral)Inclusion and exclusion criteriaQuality (philosophy)Scale (ratio)Health careMedicineLibrary scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebAlternative medicinePsychologyPolitical scienceGeographyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is an effective technology for evaluating, diagnosing, treating, and providing health care services for remote populations, including seafarers, in case of diseases or accidents on board. Delivery of telemedicine in a maritime environment is not an easy task and, in general, differs from what can be done onshore. The aim of this review is to provides an overview of Telemedical Maritime Assistance Services (TMAS) in Europe by describing the previous and current status in terms of communication technologies as well as the nature of services rendered at sea. Secondly, to discuss the areas needing improvement and future directions to improve the quality of offshore telemedicine services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Different databases, including PubMed (Medline), Google Scholar, Scopus, and journal of International Maritime Health, were searched between August 1 and September 15, 2019. Articles only published from 1969 to 2019 were considered. Relevant articles were selected by reviewing keywords, titles, and abstracts initially based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria. We critically reviewed the full-text articles included in this review. Information on the means of communication, telemedicine services, years of publication, and the name of the first author was extracted from selected studies. The quality of the selected studies was assessed using the criteria of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Initially, 135 articles were identified through searching various databases by using keywords, abstracts, and titles. After removing the duplicates, 121 articles remained. Then we performed an independent article assessment and selection based on the selection criteria, which removed an additional 61 studies, leaving 60 papers. Finally, 27 full-text papers left, and we critically reviewed it. In 27 accepted articles, email and telephone were used most often and accounted for 30% (17/57) and 28% (16/57) of all communication links, respectively. Teleconsultation was the most used telemedicine service on board and represented 58.6% (17/29) of accepted papers. CONCLUSIONS: Email and telephone were the principal means of TMAS doctors to provide medical advice as well as assistance for patients at sea. Despite the potential offered by technological progress, there are still many limitations to the provision of adequate medical care at sea. The modernisation of telemedicine services will help decrease the gap in healthcare delivery at sea.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.300 · 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