MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390430908 · doi:10.23996/fjhw.131314

Co-design of a digital solution for total hip and knee arthroplasty journey: A case study

2023· article· en· W4390430908 on OpenAlexaff
Miia Jansson, Heidi Similä, Marja Harjumaa, Jonna Koivisto, Kadri Haljas, Markus Lind, Riitta Laitala, Ari‐Pekka Puhto, Minna Pikkarainen

Bibliographic record

VenueFinnish Journal of eHealth and eWelfare · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersBusiness Finland
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Total hip arthroplastyProcess (computing)Functional requirementComputer scienceTotal knee arthroplastyArthroplastyProcess managementMedicineEngineeringSurgeryComputer securitySoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

End-users’ involvement is crucial to develop human-centered solutions; patient acceptance and endorsement by clinicians will be achieved when the features of digital solutions align with their needs and expectations. The aim of the study was to develop the overall concept of digital solution to increase transparency, foster patient adherence, and improve patient-provider communication across the entire total hip and knee arthroplasty journey from admission to discharge, and beyond. Two-stage iterative co-design process was used. Systematic literature reviews and qualitative interviews were conducted to understand the problem. In addition, co-creation sessions were used develop the solution for a reference implementation. As a result, a total of 19 technical and functional requirements were identified. In addition, ten additional functional requirements were identified for future design. The results demonstrate the overall concept of a digital solution for the reference implementation. The uniqueness of the solution lies in the vision of wider integrated systems, which could offer a clinical platform for clinicians to provide patient-focused care remotely, while monitoring patients’ progress closely.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFinnish Journal of eHealth and eWelfareSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207