MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387856759 · doi:10.1071/ah23192

The unfulfilled promises of electronic health records

2023· review· en· W4387856759 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey CL Looi, Steve Kisely, Stephen Allison, Tarun Bastiampillai, Paul A Maguire

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Health Review · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth recordsPopulation healthElectronic recordsHealth economicsElectronic health recordPublic healthMedical recordInternet privacyBusinessGovernment (linguistics)MedicineHealth carePublic relationsComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We provide a brief update on the current evidence on electronic health records' benefits, risks, and potential harms through a rapid narrative review. Many of the promised benefits of electronic health records have not yet been realised. Electronic health records are often not user-friendly. To enhance their potential, electronic health record platforms should be continuously evaluated and enhanced by carefully considering feedback from all stakeholders.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.161
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.161
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.014
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.324
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Health ReviewSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207