Creation and Implementation of an Electronic Sexual Assault Record at the Geneva University Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In Switzerland, sexual assault reports have historically been documented on paper, which limited standardization, completeness, and challenges to produce reliable statistics. Objective: This study describes the development and implementation of an Electronic Sexual Assault Record (eSAR) within Geneva University Hospitals' Electronic Medical Record (EMR) system, with the aim of improving data quality, documentation, and multidisciplinary coordination. Methods: The eSAR was developed by a multidisciplinary team including forensic doctors, gynecologists, nurses (clinical and informatics), epidemiologists, and IT specialists. Its structure was based on existing hospital protocols and international recommendations. Variables were defined as "essential" or "highly recommended," with structured fields to ensure completeness and comparability. Confidentiality was safeguarded through restricted access and regular audits. Results: The eSAR was launched in June 2022 and revised in 2023 after user feedback and training. Since implementation, 382 reports have been completed. Data quality improved substantially, with major reductions in missing information. The system also streamlined workflows and strengthened collaboration across specialties. Conclusions: The eSAR improved documentation and data reliability, providing a replicable model for standardized sexual assault reporting in Switzerland.
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 | 0.036 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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".