MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407156773 · doi:10.3390/info16020106

From Data Silos to Health Records Without Borders: A Systematic Survey on Patient-Centered Data Interoperability

2025· article· en· W4407156773 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteroperabilityInformation siloHealth dataSurvey data collectionDatabaseHealth recordsData scienceComputer scienceData miningEngineeringWorld Wide WebSiloHealth careStatisticsPolitical scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The widespread use of electronic health records (EHRs) and healthcare information systems (HISs) has led to isolated data silos across healthcare providers, and current interoperability standards like FHIR cannot address some scenarios. For instance, it cannot retrieve patients’ health records if they are stored by multiple healthcare providers with diverse interoperability standards or the same standard but different implementation guides. FHIR and similar standards prioritize institutional interoperability rather than patient-centered interoperability. We explored the challenges in transforming fragmented data silos into patient-centered data interoperability. This research comprehensively reviewed 56 notable studies to analyze the challenges and approaches in patient-centered interoperability through qualitative and quantitative analyses. We classified the challenges into four domains and categorized common features of the propositions to patient-centered interoperability into six categories: EMR integration, EHR usage, FHIR adaptation, blockchain application, semantic interoperability, and personal data retrieval. Our results indicated that “using blockchain” (48%) and “personal data retrieval” (41%) emerged as the most cited features. The Jaccard similarity analysis revealed a strong synergy between blockchain and personal data retrieval (0.47) and recommends their integration as a robust approach to achieving patient-centered interoperability. Conversely, gaps exist between semantic interoperability and personal data retrieval (0.06) and between FHIR adaptation and personal data retrieval (0.08), depicting research opportunities to develop unique contributions for both combinations. Our data-driven insights provide a roadmap for future research and innovation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.304 · 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