MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Managing Demographic Data Inconsistencies in Healthcare Information Systems

2012· book-chapter· en· W4246320142 on OpenAlexaff
Larbi Esmahi, Elarbi Badidi

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWorkflowXMLInformation systemDisparate systemRDFData exchangeDICOMDatabaseData scienceInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebSemantic WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthcare IT and IS departments have the arduous task of managing the varied information sources into readily accessible, consistent and referential information views. Patient hospital workflows, from admission to discharge, provide a series of data streams for convergences into disparate systems. Protocols such as DICOM and HL7 exist for the purposes of exchanging information within the PACS and RIS information silos in the hospital enterprise. These protocols ensure data confidence for downstream systems, but are not designed to provide referential data cross system in the system-of-systems model. As data crosses the PACS and RIS information domains, data inconsistency is introduced. This paper explores the causes for data disparity and presents a referential data design for disparate systems through the implementation of an XML bus for data exchange and an RDF framework for data semantic.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.019
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207