AI innovation in healthcare and state platforms under a rights-based perspective: the case of Brazillian RNDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines the National Health Data Network (RNDS), the platform launched by the Ministry of Health in Brazil as the primary tool for its Digital Health Strategy 2020–2028, including innovation aspects. The analysis is made through two distinct frameworks: Right to health and personal data protection in Brazil. The first approach is rooted in the legal framework shaped by Brazil’s trajectory on health since 1988, marked by the formal acknowledgment of the Right to health and the establishment of the Unified Health System, Brazil’s universal access health system, encompassing public healthcare and public health actions. The second approach stems from the repercussions of the General Data Protection Law, enacted in 2018 and the inclusion of Right to personal data protection in Brazilian’s Constitution. This legislation, akin to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulations, addressed the gap in personal data protection in Brazil and established principles and rules for data processing. The article begins by explanting the two approaches, and then it provides a brief history of health informatics policies in Brazil, leading to the current Digital Health Strategy and the RNDS. Subsequently, it delves into an analysis of the RNDS through the lenses of the two aforementioned approaches. In the final discussion sections, the article attempts to extract lessons from the analyses, particularly in light of ongoing discussions such as the secondary use of data for innovation in the context of different interpretations about innovation policies.
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 | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".