Development of a Visualization Tool for Healthcare Decision-Making using Electronic Medical Records: A Systems Approach to Viewing a Patient Record
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare delivery systems are widely accepted as socio-technical systems. Unlike other socio-technical systems, healthcare systems leave very little decision-making to technical automation and control. Instead, the healthcare delivery system relies on human healthcare resources for decision-making. Human decision-making is imperative to the clinical delivery of care to patients and to the operational processes that support care delivery, quality improvement, and other organizational management activities. For these clinical and operational activities, human resources make healthcare decisions using healthcare data typically housed in electronic medical records (EMRs). Unfortunately, EMR systems were first designed with the functional capability to store data, and, second to a lesser degree, to retrieve data. The literature recognizes the need to improve the retrieval of information from EMR systems. More specifically, there remains the need to directly view a patient's holistic health and healthcare trajectory. At this time, decision-makers are left to mentally build this holistic picture in their mind by sequentially clicking through many sections of the EMR. Therefore, in this paper, we develop a visualization tool to organize and present an individual's health and healthcare trajectory by describing a patient record holistically from a system architecture perspective. This approach is based on a previously developed system model for healthcare delivery and individual health outcomes.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it