The Power of Patient Engagement With Electronic Health Records as Research Participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic health record (EHR) technology has become a central digital health tool throughout health care. EHR systems are responsible for a growing number of vital functions for hospitals and providers. More recently, patient-facing EHR tools are allowing patients to interact with their EHR and connect external sources of health data, such as wearable fitness trackers, personal genomics, and outside health services, to it. As patients become more engaged with their EHR, the volume and variety of digital health information will serve an increasingly useful role in health care and health research. Particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ability for the biomedical research community to pivot to fully remote research, driven largely by EHR data capture and other digital health tools, is an exciting development that can significantly reduce burden on study participants, improve diversity in clinical research, and equip researchers with more robust clinical data. In this viewpoint, we describe how patient engagement with EHR technology is poised to advance the digital clinical trial space, an innovative research model that is uniquely accessible and inclusive for study participants.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".