Permissioned Healthcare Blockchain System for Securing the EHRs with Privacy Preservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare data is very sensitive as many healthcare organizations will be very reluctant to share health data. However, sharing the healthcare data is having many more uses for both the patients as well as the research institutions too. Moreover, the existing Electronic Healthcare Record (EHR) management system will be stored in the central database in the form of plaintext. Whenever the data needs to be accessed from the database, the users will be requesting the required EHRs. However, this mechanism possesses the several challenges such as single point of failure, takes more time for user identification, interoperability issues, data recoverability issues, lack of privacy and security. This paper mainly focuses on providing security for the healthcare data, which can be shared among the various health institutions. Authentication and authorization are provided by establishing multiple certification authorities on the permissioned healthcare blockchain network. In this proposed model data integrity is also achieved by the concept of hashing of the electronic health records rather than storing it directly onto the permissioned healthcare block chain network.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".