Authors’ Reply: Involving Health, Technology, and Financial Stakeholders in Co-Designing Digital Pathways for Value-Based Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Author Reply addresses the comments raised in response to our Viewpoint, “Digital Health Innovations to Catalyze the Transition to Value-Based Health Care.” We appreciate the thoughtful reflections that emphasize the broader system-level requirements for implementing value-based health care (VBHC) beyond technology adoption. In this response, we affirm the importance of patient co-design, digital equity, data interoperability, and workforce education as essential enablers of VBHC. We also acknowledge the significance of sustainable financing models and stakeholder collaboration to support long-term transformation. We concur that realizing VBHC requires systemic alignment across governance, clinical, and financial dimensions, and we support continued interdisciplinary research to guide equitable and scalable digital health innovation.
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 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.042 | 0.051 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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".