Generative AI, IoT, and blockchain in healthcare: application, issues, and solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses Blockchain and Generative AI in healthcare, including their uses, difficulties, and solutions. Blockchain technology improves EHR security, privacy, and interoperability, while smart contracts streamline supply chain management and administrative procedures. Blockchain verifies and secures IoT data, improving medical care and treatment, according to case studies. Generative AI systems like ChatGPT have transformed healthcare by personalizing therapy, diagnostics, and predictive analytics. AI systems can examine massive databases to diagnose diseases early, anticipate dangers, and personalize therapies. By providing timely information, boosting treatment adherence, and giving continuous support, AI-powered virtual health assistants have enhanced patient involvement. Generative AI has additionally enhanced medical research and drug development, cutting the time and expense of introducing new medicines. Generative AI and Blockchain provide safe patient data storage, high-quality AI training datasets, and efficient healthcare operations. Scalability, energy usage, and interoperability issues remain. Scalable Blockchain designs and standardized data integration and exchange protocols are suggested by this study. These technologies could improve medical research and therapy by making them safer, more effective, and more individualized.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".