From Data Silos to Health Records Without Borders: A Systematic Survey on Patient-Centered Data Interoperability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.084 | 0.196 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".