MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214845829 · doi:10.2196/32287

Medical-Blocks―A Platform for Exploration, Management, Analysis, and Sharing of Data in Biomedical Research: System Development and Integration Results

2022· article· en· W4214845829 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Waldo Valenzuela, Fabian Balsiger, Roland Wiest, Olivier Scheidegger

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingMetadataData sharingData managementHealth careData scienceWorld Wide WebDatabaseMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Biomedical research requires health care institutions to provide sensitive clinical data to leverage data science and artificial intelligence technologies. However, providing researchers access to health care data in a simple and secure manner proves to be challenging for health care institutions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to introduce and describe Medical-Blocks, a platform for exploration, management, analysis, and sharing of data in biomedical research. METHODS: The specification requirements for Medical-Blocks included connection to data sources of health care institutions with an interface for data exploration, management of data in an internal file storage system, data analysis through visualization and classification of data, and data sharing via a file hosting service for collaboration. Medical-Blocks should be simple to use via a web-based user interface and extensible with new functionalities by a modular design via microservices (blocks). The scalability of the platform should be ensured through containerization. Security and legal regulations were considered during development. RESULTS: Medical-Blocks is a web application that runs in the cloud or as a local instance at a health care institution. Local instances of Medical-Blocks access data sources such as electronic health records and picture archiving and communication system at health care institutions. Researchers and clinicians can explore, manage, and analyze the available data through Medical-Blocks. Data analysis involves the classification of data for metadata extraction and the formation of cohorts. In collaborations, metadata (eg, the number of patients per cohort) or the data alone can be shared through Medical-Blocks locally or via a cloud instance with other researchers and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Medical-Blocks facilitates biomedical research by providing a centralized platform to interact with medical data in collaborative research projects. Access to and management of medical data are simplified. Data can be swiftly analyzed to form cohorts for research and be shared among researchers. The modularity of Medical-Blocks makes the platform feasible for biomedical research where heterogeneous medical data are required.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.449
GPT teacher head0.585
Teacher spread0.135 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207