The State of Practice About Security in Telemedicine Systems in Chile: Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Information security within telemedicine systems is essential to advancing the digital transformation of health care. Telemedicine encompasses diverse modalities, including teleconsultation, telehealth, and remote patient monitoring, all of which depend on digital platforms, secured communication networks, and internet-connected devices. Although these systems have progressed in aligning with information security standards and regulations, there remains a shortage of comprehensive, practice-oriented studies evaluating which aspects of security are effectively addressed and which remain insufficiently managed, particularly within the Chilean context. Objective: This study aims to examine how effectively telemedicine systems in Chile address the core security attributes of confidentiality, availability, and integrity. Methods: Data were analyzed from an evaluation tool designed to assess the quality of telemedicine systems in Chile. Over a 6-year period, 25 telemedicine systems from different providers were assessed, and an in-depth examination of how companies manage key information security subcharacteristics within their systems was undertaken. Results: The findings indicate that 52% (n=13) of telemedicine systems optimally implement cryptographic techniques to protect confidentiality. In contrast, 44% (n=11) lack robust strategies for adapting to, recovering from, and mitigating security-related incidents. Fault tolerance mechanisms are frequently integrated to minimize service disruption caused by system failures. However, the prioritization of data integrity varies: while some companies treat it as a critical requirement, others assign it limited importance. Conclusions: This study offers an understanding of the security priorities and practices adopted by telemedicine providers. It highlights a prevailing tendency to prioritize security measures over usability, underscoring the need for a balanced approach that safeguards patient information while supporting efficient clinical workflows.
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 | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".