Retracted: A Comparative study of Medical Record standards in Selected Countries
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Challenges relating to expense and quality, has induced an atmosphere in a way that decision makers at all levels are investigating for objective data to evaluate healthcare organizations. \n\nSince medical records documents the care of patients, and are considered to be the first yard stick to evaluate the care rendered to the patients, this essential that they follow certain rules and regulations, so that the quality of services offered by this department be compatible and durable according to evaluative standards. \n\nResearch method: In a descriptive comparative study and with the assistance of fax, internet, and email standards of medical records in the United States, Australia, and Canada were gathered and compared with the Iranian standards. \n\nFindings: Research findings show that the Iranian ministry of health science, and medical education has taken in to consideration the minimum standards relating to medical records policies and procedures. All countries under study except Iran had standards for education and professional development. \n\nIran is the only country that the use of computer, and other technological gadgets were used without definiting its objective for use. \n\nDiscussion and result: With a glimpse at the importance of the role that standards play in facing the expense and quality challenge in today's health care system, it is essential that medical Records as part of the system, abide by a standard and efficient system. But due to the constraints available standards prescribed by the ministry, the need to implement a standard system by the experts see use eminent.
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 | 0.013 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".