Reflections about Blockchain in Health Data Sharing: Navigating a Disruptive Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comprehensive analysis was performed, considering blockchain technology (BT) properties in digital health, addressing medicolegal, privacy, and regulatory considerations. Adherence to personal data protection and healthcare regulatory guidelines were analyzed and compared for GDPR (Europe), HIPAA (United States), CCPA (California), PIPEDA (Canada), the Privacy Act of 1988 (Australia), APPI (Japan), and LGPD (Brazil). Issues such as health systems, strengthening and aligning policy orientations and initiatives, and emphasizing the role of data analysis in shaping health policies were explored. The study addressed conflicts between the legal frameworks and blockchain, comparing and suggesting solutions like the revision of laws and the integration of compliance mechanisms. Additionally, it sought to enhance IT-health literacy by integrating the healthcare and legal domains. Ongoing collaboration between legal, health, and IT experts is essential for designing systems that effectively balance privacy rights and data protection while maximizing the benefits of disruptive technologies like blockchain.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".