MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390501400 · doi:10.52711/2231-5713.2023.00047

A Review on digital medicine and its implications in drug development process

2023· review· en· W4390501400 on OpenAlexaff
Amber Vyas, Tanu Bhargava, Surendra Saraf, Vishal Jain, Darshan Dubey

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Pharmacy and Technology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital healthHealth careVariety (cybernetics)LegislationProcess (computing)Computer scienceKnowledge managementMedicineArtificial intelligencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A field known as "digital medicine" is focused with using technology as aid for assessment and involvement in the interest of better public health. Digital medical solutions are built on top-notch technology and software that supports the practice of medicine broadly, including treatment, rehabilitation, illness prevention, and health promotion for individuals and across groups. Digital medical products can be used independently or in conjunction with pharmaceuticals, biologics, devices, and other products to enhance patient care and health outcomes. With the use of smart, easily accessible tools, digital medicine equips patients and healthcare professionals to treat a variety of illnesses with high-quality, safe, and efficient measures and data-driven therapies. The discipline of digital medicine includes both considerable professional knowledge and responsibilities linked to the usage of these digital tools. The application of these technologies in digital medicine is supported by the development of evidence. Technology is causing changes in medicine. Wearable and sensors are becoming more compact and affordable, and algorithms are becoming strong enough to forecast medical outcomes. Nevertheless, despite quick advancements, the healthcare sector lags behind other sectors in effectively utilizing new technology. The cross-disciplinary approach necessary to develop such tools, needing knowledge from many experts across many professions, is a significant barrier to entry. The participation in digital medicine programs is optional, complies with all legal requirements and standards, and protects patient data in line with relevant state and federal privacy legislation, just like other data created and maintained in electronic medical records. Aside from helping doctors more correctly titrate dosages and assess how well a treatment works, experts say digital medicine programs hold promise as a solution to the problem of medication adherence.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of Pharmacy and Technology→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→