Blockchain Applications in Health Care and Public Health: Increased Transparency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although big data and smart technologies allow for the development of precision medicine and predictive models in health care, there are still several challenges that need to be addressed before the full potential of these data can be realized (eg, data sharing and interoperability issues, lack of massive genomic data sets, data ownership, and security and privacy of health data). Health companies are exploring the use of blockchain, a tamperproof and distributed digital ledger, to address some of these challenges. OBJECTIVE: In this viewpoint, we aim to obtain an overview of blockchain solutions that aim to solve challenges in health care from an industry perspective, focusing on solutions developed by health and technology companies. METHODS: We conducted a literature review following the protocol defined by Levac et al to analyze the findings in a systematic manner. In addition to traditional databases such as IEEE and PubMed, we included search and news outlets such as CoinDesk, CoinTelegraph, and Medium. RESULTS: Health care companies are using blockchain to improve challenges in five key areas. For electronic health records, blockchain can help to mitigate interoperability and data sharing in the industry by creating an overarching mechanism to link disparate personal records and can stimulate data sharing by connecting owners and buyers directly. For the drug (and food) supply chain, blockchain can provide an auditable log of a product's provenance and transportation (including information on the conditions in which the product was transported), increasing transparency and eliminating counterfeit products in the supply chain. For health insurance, blockchain can facilitate the claims management process and help users to calculate medical and pharmaceutical benefits. For genomics, by connecting data buyers and owners directly, blockchain can offer a secure and auditable way of sharing genomic data, increasing their availability. For consent management, as all participants in a blockchain network view an immutable version of the truth, blockchain can provide an immutable and timestamped log of consent, increasing transparency in the consent management process. CONCLUSIONS: Blockchain technology can improve several challenges faced by the health care industry. However, companies must evaluate how the features of blockchain can affect their systems (eg, the append-only nature of blockchain limits the deletion of data stored in the network, and distributed systems, although more secure, are less efficient). Although these trade-offs need to be considered when viewing blockchain solutions, the technology has the potential to optimize processes, minimize inefficiencies, and increase trust in all contexts covered in this viewpoint.
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 | 0.052 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".