MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407090224 · doi:10.2196/50331

Patient-Generated Collections for Organizing Electronic Health Record Data to Elevate Personal Meaning, Improve Actionability, and Support Patient–Health Care Provider Communication: Think-Aloud Evaluation Study

2025· article· en· W4407090224 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Drashko Nakikj, David Kreda, Karan Luthria, Nils Gehlenborg

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSession (web analytics)Meaning (existential)Health careMedical recordThink aloud protocolInternet privacyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPsychologyMedicineHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Through third party applications, patients in the United States have access to their electronic health record (EHR) data from multiple health care providers. However, these applications offer only a predefined organization of these records by type, time stamp, or provider, leaving out meaningful connections between them. This prevents patients from efficiently reviewing, exploring, and making sense of their EHR data based on current or ongoing health issues. The lack of personalized organization and important connections can limit patients' ability to use their data and make informed health decisions. OBJECTIVE: To address these challenges, we created Discovery, an experimental app that enables patients to organize their medical records into collections, analogous to placing pictures in photo albums. These collections are based on the evolving understanding of the patients' past and ongoing health issues. The app also allows patients to add text notes to collections and their constituent records. By observing how patients used features to select records and assemble them into collections, our goal was to learn about their preferred mechanisms to complete these tasks and the challenges they would face in the wild. We also intended to become more informed about the various ways in which patients could and would like to use collections. METHODS: We conducted a think-aloud evaluation study with 14 participants on synthetic data. In session 1, we obtained feedback on the mechanics for creating and assembling collections and adding notes. In session 2, we focused on reviewing collections, finding data patterns within them, and retaining insights, as well as exploring use cases. We conducted reflexive thematic analysis on the transcribed feedback. RESULTS: Collections were useful for personal use (quick access to information, reflection on medical history, tracking health, journaling, and learning from past experiences) and clinical visits (preparation and raising physicians' awareness). Assembling EHR data into reliable collections could be difficult for typical patients due to considerable manual work and lack of medical knowledge. However, automated collection building could alleviate this issue. Furthermore, having EHR data organized in collections may have limited use. However, augmenting them with patient-generated data, which are entered with flexible richness and structure, could add context, elevate meaning, and improve actionability. Finally, collections might produce a misconstrued health picture, but bringing the physician in the loop for verification could increase their clinical validity. CONCLUSIONS: Collections can be a powerful tool for advancing patients' proactivity, awareness, and self-advocacy, potentially facilitating patient-centered care. However, patients need better support for incorporating their own everyday data and adding meaningful annotations for future reference. Improvements in the comprehensiveness, efficiency, and reliability of the collection assembly process through automation are also necessary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207