Blockchain-enabled patient identity management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the continuously changing world of healthcare, protecting patient data is critical. This chapter presents a novel strategy to address the essential issue of patient identity management by integrating Python and Solidity computer languages into blockchain technology. The suggested approach uses blockchain technology's transparent, immutable, and decentralized characteristics to improve patient-identifying data security and integrity. Python is used to build the backend infrastructure because of its flexibility and efficiency. In contrast, Solidity, a language created for Ethereum blockchain smart contracts, is used to create a safe and unchangeable identity verification procedure. The synergy between these languages enables the creation of a robust, decentralized system that facilitates the seamless sharing and updating of patient information across healthcare providers while maintaining privacy and compliance with regulatory standards. Smart contracts are used by the system to manage patient identities, guaranteeing that only authorized parties can view and modify relevant data. The blockchain-enabled patient identification management system improves interoperability across healthcare providers, lowering the risk of identity fraud and increasing overall healthcare efficiency. This suggested framework addresses persistent issues with patient identification management and contributes to the growing corpus of knowledge regarding blockchain applications in healthcare. It offers a framework that is flexible and scalable which can be included in current healthcare systems to promote security, openness, and confidence in the handling of patient IDs. As the healthcare industry continues its digital revolution, this innovative approach has the potential to fundamentally alter patient data management, which would ultimately enhance patient outcomes and fortify the healthcare ecosystem.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".