Smart Contracts and Shared Platforms in Sustainable Health Care: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefits of smart contracts (SCs) for sustainable health care are a relatively recent topic that has gathered attention given its relationship with trust and the advantages of decentralization, immutability, and traceability introduced in health care. Nevertheless, more studies need to explore the role of SCs in this sector based on the frameworks propounded in the literature that reflect business logic that has been customized, automatized, and prioritized, as well as system trust. This study addressed this lacuna. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of SCs in health care based on reviewing the frameworks propounded in the literature. METHODS: A structured literature review was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) principles. One database-Web of Science (WoS)-was selected to avoid bias generated by database differences and data wrangling. A quantitative assessment of the studies based on machine learning and data reduction methodologies was complemented with a qualitative, in-depth, detailed review of the frameworks propounded in the literature. RESULTS: A total of 70 studies, which constituted 18.7% (70/374) of the studies on this subject, met the selection criteria and were analyzed. A multiple correspondence analysis-with 74.44% of the inertia-produced 3 factors describing the advances in the topic. Two of them referred to the leading roles of SCs: (1) health care process enhancement and (2) assurance of patients' privacy protection. The first role included 6 themes, and the second one included 3 themes. The third factor encompassed the technical features that improve system efficiency. The in-depth review of these 3 factors and the identification of stakeholders allowed us to characterize the system trust in health care SCs. We assessed the risk of coverage bias, and good percentages of overlap were obtained-66% (49/74) of PubMed articles were also in WoS, and 88.3% (181/205) of WoS articles also appeared in Scopus. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive review allows us to understand the relevance of SCs and the potentiality of their use in patient-centric health care that considers more than technical aspects. It also provides insights for further research based on specific stakeholders, locations, and behaviors.
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 | 0.019 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".