Problem-Oriented Medical Records for Describing Care Cases Using Multi-Tenants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are countless applications in healthcare for digital personal assistants helping clinicians as well as patients and their families. However, there is no conversational application to understand patient encounters and assist clinicians to describe their clinical cases in association with their medical record like the HL7 FHIR. Building such conversational service requires understanding of the charting schema used to record clinical cases in the clinical setting like the SOAP note as well as having the federated APIs to exchange messages not only between tenants (e.g. Patients and Physicians) but also with different servers including the FHIR electronic healthcare record server. In this paper we described the extension that we have added to our existing QL4POMR framework to have extended ability to represent clinical cases via the use of multi-tenants chatbots based on the SOAP note and the connectivity to the FHIR server. The extension to the QL4POMR uses the Google DialogFlow and the GraphQL-Yoga APIs. This research work is a continuation of our MITACS and NSERC funded work that has started in 2020.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".