MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400673915 · doi:10.61093/hem.2024.2-06

Health Security and Cybersecurity: Analysis of Interdependencies

2024· article· en· W4400673915 on OpenAlexaff
Olena Dobrovolska, Wolfgang Ortmanns, Тетяна Доценко, Vlad Lustenko, Daniil Savchenko

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Economics and Management Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsMicrosemi (Canada)
FundersAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsComputer securityInterdependenceBusinessSecurity analysisComputer scienceInternet privacyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of medical digital platforms with data on patients, medical institutions and medicines, the growing use of IoT devices in medicine, the development of telemedicine accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the growth of big data-based treatment technologies – all this makes it necessary to ensure reliable cyberdefence in the field of public health, maintain the confidentiality of financial information of clinics and health insurance companies, protect databases with patient records from hacking, and ensure secure communication. The article uses economic and mathematical modelling to study the relationship between two well-known international indexes and their components: The Global Health Security Index (GHSI) and the Global Cybersecurity Index (GCSI) for 190 countries in 2021. The input base included 6 cybersecurity subindexes and 7 health security subindexes for 2021. Based on the iterative divisive k-means method, all countries were grouped into 3 clusters. The first cluster includes 55 countries (medium levels of the studied indexes), the second – 49 (high levels), the third – 86 (low levels). The feasibility of dividing into clusters and choosing their optimal number is substantiated by means of variance analysis. Via the methods of Sigma-restricted parameterisation, Univariate Tests of Significance, Pareto Chart of t-Values and correlation analysis, all factors, without exception, proved to be relevant. Due to the OLS method, multiple linear regressions describing the relationships between various components of these indexes and their integral values are generated. The statistical significance of the factors included in the model is confirmed, and the model itself is tested for adequacy and accuracy. On the basis of correlation analysis, existence and magnitude of statistical relationship between the components of these indexes are revealed. The strongest correlations are observed between the integral values of these indexes, as well as between pairs of subindexes: 1) Legal Measures (GHSI component) and Prevention (GCSI component); 2) Technical Measures (GHSI component) and Detection and Reporting (GCSI component). To identify the causal relationship between the groups of factors, a canonical analysis was carried out, which showed the GHSI parameters are causal and the GCSI parameters are resultant. The linear regression model showed a significant positive relationship between the GHSI and GCSI indexes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.333 · 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.

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

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Economics and Management ReviewSame topicGlobal Security and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207