Bibliographic record
Abstract
This entry provides a brief review of the historical origin and evolution of telemedicine, starting with the pioneering work of Nobel laureate Willem Einthoven, Dutch clinician and physiologist, in 1906, who demonstrated the feasibility of transmitting heart sounds over telephone lines. During the ensuing millennium, telemedicine has undergone several epochs of growth, retrenchment, and transformation. The cyclical trends and eventual persistence of telemedicine are explained by the intransigent problems of healthcare inequity, uneven access, cost inflation, and the promise of telemedicine to address them. Initial resistance to telemedicine reflected technical limitations and excessive cost of the infrastructure. In the United States, the role of government in supporting telemedicine has been discordant. There was a concern about large‐scale expansion in pent‐up demand for care once it became readily available and accessible through technology, which might threaten the stability of the trust fund supporting Medicare and Medicaid. However, these policies in Canada and several European countries were more consistent. The COVID‐19 pandemic changed the healthcare landscape, and telemedicine became widely used to sustain healthcare resources while protecting clinicians and patients from a highly infectious disease. Beyond the pandemic, telemedicine is likely to persist in one form or another as clinicians and patients worldwide have gained firsthand experience with this modality of delivering and receiving care, and the dependence on the same technology in all sectors of society.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".