Telemedicine and Telepharmacy in Modern Healthcare: Innovations, Medical Technologies, Digital Transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents an overview of modern approaches to the development of telemedicine and telepharmacy as innovative forms of providing medical and pharmaceutical services at a distance. The historical stages of the formation of telemedicine, its integration into pharmaceutical practice, the main principles of telepharmacy and the formats of its implementation are highlighted. The advantages of using telepharmacy are considered, including increasing the availability of pharmaceutical care, optimizing resources, improving the quality of pharmaceutical care, and reducing the burden on the healthcare system. The challenges and limitations of the development of telepharmacy were analyzed, including legal, ethical, and technological aspects, issues of licensing and personal data protection. Special attention is paid to the international experience of implementing telepharmaceutical services in the USA, EU countries, Canada and Australia. The current state and prospects for the development of telepharmacy in Ukraine in the context of the digitalization of healthcare are described. A special emphasis is placed on the role of artificial intelligence in supporting clinical decisions, automating pharmaceutical consultations, and introducing virtual pharmacists. Recommendations are proposed for the integration of telepharmacy into the national healthcare system and pharmaceutical practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".