Evolution of Health Information Sharing Between Health Care Organizations: Potential of Nonfungible Tokens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study attempts to explain the development and progress of the technology used for sharing health information across health care organizations (such as hospitals and physicians' offices). First, we describe the strengths and weaknesses of traditional sharing models, health information exchange (HIE), and blockchain-based HIE. Second, the potential use of nonfungible token (NFT) protocols in HIE models is proposed as the next possible move for information-sharing initiatives in health care. In addition to some potential opportunities and distinguishing features (eg, ownability, verifiability, and incentivization), we identify the uncertainty and risks associated with the application of NFTs, such as the lack of a dedicated regulatory framework for legal ownership of digital patient data. This paper is among the first to discuss the potential of NFTs in health care. The use of NFTs in HIE networks could generate a new stream of research for future studies. This study provides practical insights into how the technological foundations of information-sharing efforts in health care have developed and diversified from earlier forms.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".