Non-fungible tokens in healthcare: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are digital assets that are verified using blockchain technology to ensure authenticity and ownership. NFTs have the potential to revolutionize healthcare by addressing various issues in the industry. Method: The goal of this study was to identify the applications of NFTs in healthcare. Our scoping review was conducted in 2023. We searched the Scopus, IEEE, PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Cochrane scientific databases using related keywords. The article selection process was based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results: After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 13 articles were chosen. Then extracted data was summarized and reported. The most common application of NFTs in healthcare was found to be in health data management with 46% frequency, followed by supply chain management with 31% frequency. Furthermore, Ethereum is the main blockchain platform that is applied in NFTs in healthcare with 70%. Discussion: The findings from this review indicate that the NFTs that are currently used in healthcare could transform it. Also, it appears that researchers have not yet investigated the numerous potentials uses of NFTs in the healthcare field, which could be utilized in the future.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".