State-of-the-Art Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR)–Based Data Model and Structure Implementations: Systematic Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data models are crucial for clinical research as they enable researchers to fully use the vast amount of clinical data stored in medical systems. Standardized data and well-defined relationships between data points are necessary to guarantee semantic interoperability. Using the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard for clinical data representation would be a practical methodology to enhance and accelerate interoperability and data availability for research. OBJECTIVE: This research aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the state-of-the-art and current landscape in FHIR-based data models and structures. In addition, we intend to identify and discuss the tools, resources, limitations, and other critical aspects mentioned in the selected research papers. METHODS: To ensure the extraction of reliable results, we followed the instructions of the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. We analyzed the indexed articles in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, the ACM Digital Library, and Google Scholar. After identifying, extracting, and assessing the quality and relevance of the articles, we synthesized the extracted data to identify common patterns, themes, and variations in the use of FHIR-based data models and structures across different studies. RESULTS: On the basis of the reviewed articles, we could identify 2 main themes: dynamic (pipeline-based) and static data models. The articles were also categorized into health care use cases, including chronic diseases, COVID-19 and infectious diseases, cancer research, acute or intensive care, random and general medical notes, and other conditions. Furthermore, we summarized the important or common tools and approaches of the selected papers. These items included FHIR-based tools and frameworks, machine learning approaches, and data storage and security. The most common resource was "Observation" followed by "Condition" and "Patient." The limitations and challenges of developing data models were categorized based on the issues of data integration, interoperability, standardization, performance, and scalability or generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: FHIR serves as a highly promising interoperability standard for developing real-world health care apps. The implementation of FHIR modeling for electronic health record data facilitates the integration, transmission, and analysis of data while also advancing translational research and phenotyping. Generally, FHIR-based exports of local data repositories improve data interoperability for systems and data warehouses across different settings. However, ongoing efforts to address existing limitations and challenges are essential for the successful implementation and integration of FHIR data models.
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 | 0.084 | 0.317 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.044 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".