The Fast Health Interoperability Resources (FHIR) Standard: Systematic Literature Review of Implementations, Applications, Challenges and Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Information technology has shifted paper-based documentation in the health care sector into a digital form, in which patient information is transferred electronically from one place to another. However, there remain challenges and issues to resolve in this domain owing to the lack of proper standards, the growth of new technologies (mobile devices, tablets, ubiquitous computing), and health care providers who are reluctant to share patient information. Therefore, a solid systematic literature review was performed to understand the use of this new technology in the health care sector. To the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of comprehensive systematic literature reviews that focus on Fast Health Interoperability Resources (FHIR)-based electronic health records (EHRs). In addition, FHIR is the latest standard, which is in an infancy stage of development. Therefore, this is a hot research topic with great potential for further research in this domain. OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study was to explore and perform a systematic review of the literature related to FHIR, including the challenges, implementation, opportunities, and future FHIR applications. METHODS: In January 2020, we searched articles published from January 2012 to December 2019 via all major digital databases in the field of computer science and health care, including ACM, IEEE Explorer, Springer, Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect. We identified 8181 scientific articles published in this field, 80 of which met our inclusion criteria for further consideration. RESULTS: The selected 80 scientific articles were reviewed systematically, and we identified open questions, challenges, implementation models, used resources, beneficiary applications, data migration approaches, and goals of FHIR. CONCLUSIONS: The literature analysis performed in this systematic review highlights the important role of FHIR in the health care domain in the near future.
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 | 0.029 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".