PHDMF: A Flexible and Scalable Personal Health Data Management Framework Based on Blockchain Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, most of the personal health data (PHD) are managed and stored separately by individual medical institutions. When these data need to be shared, they must be transferred to a trusted management center and approved by data owners through the third-party endorsement technology. Therefore, it is difficult for personal health data to be shared and circulated over multiple medical institutions. On the other hand, the use of directly exchanging and sharing the original data has become inconsistent with the data rapid growth of medical institutions because of the need of massive data transferring across agencies. In order to secure sharing and managing the mass personal health data generated by various medical institutions, a federal personal health data management framework (PHDMF, https://hvic.biosino.org/PHDMF) has been developed, which had the following advantages: 1) the blockchain technology was used to establish a data consortium over multiple medical institutions, which could provide a flexible and scalable technical solution for member extension and solve the problem of third-party endorsement during data sharing; 2) using data distributed storage technology, personal health data could be majorly stored in their original medical institutions, and the massive data transferring process was of no further use, which could match up with the data rapid growth of these institutions; 3) the distributed ledger technology was utilized to record the hash value of data, given the anti-tampering feature of the technology, malicious modification of data could be identified by comparing the hash value; 4) the smart contract technology was introduced to manage users' access and operation of data, which made the data transaction process traceable and solved the problem of data provenance; and 5) a trusted computing environment was provided for meta-analysis with statistic information instead of original data, the trusted computing environment could be further applied to more health data, such as genome sequencing data, protein expression data, and metabolic profile data through combining the federated learning and blockchain technology. In summary, the framework provides a convenient, secure, and trusted environment for health data supervision and circulation, which facilitate the consortium establish over medical institutions and help achieve the value of data sharing and mining.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".