MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384203478 · doi:10.3390/cryptography7030036

The Role of Blockchain in Medical Data Sharing

2023· article· en· W4384203478 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCryptography · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity Canada West
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlockchainData sharingWorkflowHealth careComputer scienceEncryptionData exchangeComputer securityData managementThe InternetData scienceWorld Wide WebMedicineDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As medical technology advances, there is an increasing need for healthcare providers all over the world to securely share a growing volume of data. Blockchain is a powerful technology that allows multiple parties to securely access and share data. Given the enormous challenge that healthcare systems face in digitizing and sharing health records, it is not unexpected that many are attempting to improve healthcare processes by utilizing blockchain technology. By systematically examining articles published from 2017 to 2022, this review addresses the existing gap by methodically discussing the state, research trends, and challenges of blockchain in medical data exchange. The number of articles on this issue has increased, reflecting the growing importance and interest in blockchain research for medical data exchange. Recent blockchain-based medical data sharing advances include safe healthcare management systems, health data architectures, smart contract frameworks, and encryption approaches. The evaluation examines medical data encryption, blockchain networks, and how the Internet of Things (IoT) improves hospital workflows. The findings show that blockchain can improve patient care and healthcare services by securely sharing data.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it