MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408009823 · doi:10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e109

Reinforcing Primary Care in Korea: Policy Implications, Data Sources, and Research Methods

2025· review· en· W4408009823 on OpenAlexaff
Chung-Nyun Kim, Seok‐Jun Yoon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Korean Medical Science · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary careData scienceMEDLINEMedicineComputer sciencePolitical scienceFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Korea has undergone rapid transformation, achieving significant advancements in both economic development and social security. Notably, the country achieved universal health coverage within a remarkably short period, representing a significant institutional milestone in healthcare. However, the healthcare system faces substantial challenges due to limited resources, a reliance on private healthcare providers, and a rapidly aging population which threatens its sustainability. Various efforts have been made to strengthen Korea's primary care environment. This study aims to examine the multifaceted healthcare landscape surrounding primary care in Korea, analyze associated systems to identify institutional limitations, and propose strategies to enhance primary care in the future. Additionally, it seeks to raise awareness of the current state of primary care in Korea and serves as an example for other countries striving to improve their primary care systems. Furthermore, this review provides a comprehensive overview of key data sources relevant to primary care research in Korea, such as the National Health Insurance Service claims data and the Korea Health Panel Survey. It also outlines practical research methodologies-from epidemiological studies to policy analyses-serving as a valuable reference for both domestic and international scholars seeking to enhance primary care systems.

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 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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.299
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.235 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Korean Medical ScienceSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207