MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172260675 · doi:10.2196/21929

The Fast Health Interoperability Resources (FHIR) Standard: Systematic Literature Review of Implementations, Applications, Challenges and Opportunities

2021· review· en· W3172260675 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteroperabilityComputer scienceSystematic reviewDocumentationHealth careHealth information technologyHealth informaticsImplementationData scienceKnowledge managementMEDLINEMedicineWorld Wide WebSoftware engineeringNursingPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.363 · 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