MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415372313 · doi:10.2196/83547

C8 Health, a Platform for the Implementation of Best Practices: Survey-Based Usability Study

2025· preprint· en· W4415372313 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Faria Nisar, N. D’Alessandro, Jessica Suratkal, Ido Zamberg, Samantha Pope, Ali Ali, Luis Tollinche

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityWorkflowAnesthesiologySystem usability scaleQuality (philosophy)Web usabilityUsability labClinical decision support system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Mobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly integrated into clinical workflows to support decision-making and adherence to best practices. Usability is a critical determinant of adoption, engagement, and long-term use. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the usability of the C8 Health platform deployed in the Department of Anesthesiology at MetroHealth in 2024. Methods A quality improvement initiative was conducted using the mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ). A total of 142 anesthesiology clinicians participated by completing the questionnaire. This study was reported in accordance with the SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines for quality improvement reporting. Results The overall MAUQ scores indicated high usability, with mean scores greater than 5.5 across core items (overall mean MAUQ score 5.73, SD 0.81). These findings suggest strong user satisfaction and positive engagement with the C8 Health platform among anesthesiology clinicians. Conclusions The C8 Health platform demonstrated high usability in an anesthesiology setting. These results support its integration as a clinical decision support tool to enhance workflow efficiency and adherence to best practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.350
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.253 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207