Frameworks, Dimensions, Definitions of Aspects, and Assessment Methods for the Appraisal of Quality of Health Data for Secondary Use: Comprehensive Overview of Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health care has not reached the full potential of the secondary use of health data because of-among other issues-concerns about the quality of the data being used. The shift toward digital health has led to an increase in the volume of health data. However, this increase in quantity has not been matched by a proportional improvement in the quality of health data. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to offer a comprehensive overview of the existing frameworks for data quality dimensions and assessment methods for the secondary use of health data. In addition, it aims to consolidate the results into a unified framework. METHODS: A review of reviews was conducted including reviews describing frameworks of data quality dimensions and their assessment methods, specifically from a secondary use perspective. Reviews were excluded if they were not related to the health care ecosystem, lacked relevant information related to our research objective, and were published in languages other than English. RESULTS: A total of 22 reviews were included, comprising 22 frameworks, with 23 different terms for dimensions, and 62 definitions of dimensions. All dimensions were mapped toward the data quality framework of the European Institute for Innovation through Health Data. In total, 8 reviews mentioned 38 different assessment methods, pertaining to 31 definitions of the dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: The findings in this review revealed a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the terminology, definitions, and assessment methods for data quality dimensions. This creates ambiguity and difficulties in developing specific assessment methods. This study goes a step further by assigning all observed definitions to a consolidated framework of 9 data quality dimensions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.131 | 0.281 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.044 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".