Achieving data security and privacy across healthcare applications using cyber security mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Currently, in the health-care sector, information security and privacy are increasingly important issues. The improvement in information security is highlighted in adopting digital patient records based on regulation, providers’ consolidation, and the growing need to exchange information among patients, providers, and payers. Design/methodology/approach Big data on health care are likely to improve patient outcomes, predict epidemic outbreaks, gain valuable insights, prevent diseases, reduce health-care costs and improve analysis of the quality of life. Findings In this paper, the big data analytics-based cybersecurity framework has been proposed for security and privacy across health-care applications. It is vital to identify the limitations of existing solutions for future research to ensure a trustworthy big data environment. Furthermore, electronic health records (EHR) could potentially be shared by various users to increase the quality of health-care services. This leads to significant issues of privacy that need to be addressed to implement the EHR. Originality/value This framework combines several technical mechanisms and environmental controls and is shown to be enough to adequately pay attention to common threats to network security.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".