MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094521794 · doi:10.2196/19267

Data Object Exchange (DOEx) as a Method to Facilitate Intraorganizational Collaboration by Managed Data Sharing: Viewpoint

2020· article· en· W3094521794 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ronald G. Hauser, Ankur Bhargava, Ronald Talmage, Mihaela Aslan, John Concato

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsComputer scienceInformaticsData sharingTimelineWorld Wide WebDeliverableHealth informaticsHealth information exchangeDatabaseObject (grammar)Data exchangeHealth careMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To help reduce expenses, shorten timelines, and improve the quality of final deliverables, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) and other health care systems promote sharing of expertise among informatics user groups. Traditional barriers to time-efficient sharing of expertise include difficulties in finding potential collaborators and availability of a mechanism to share expertise. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe how the VA shares expertise among its informatics groups by describing a custom-built tool, the Data Object Exchange (DOEx), along with statistics on its usage. METHODS: A centrally managed web application was developed in the VA to share informatics expertise using database objects. Visitors to the site can view a catalog of objects published by other informatics user groups. Requests for subscription and publication made through the site are routed to database administrators, who then actualize the resource requests through modifications of database object permissions. RESULTS: As of April 2019, the DOEx enabled the publication of 707 database objects to 1202 VA subscribers from 758 workgroups. Overall, over 10,000 requests are made each year regarding permissions on these shared database objects, involving diverse information. Common "flavors" of shared data include disease-specific study populations (eg, patients with asthma), common data definitions (eg, hemoglobin laboratory results), and results of complex analyses (eg, models of anticipated resource utilization). Shared database objects also enable construction of community-built data pipelines. CONCLUSIONS: To increase the efficiency of informatics user groups, a method was developed to facilitate intraorganizational collaboration by managed data sharing. The advantages of this system include (1) reduced duplication of work (thereby reducing expenses and shortening timelines) and (2) higher quality of work based on simplifying the adoption of specialized knowledge among groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0140.019
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207