MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bringing Electronic Patient Records into Health Professional Education: Software Architecture and Implementation

2009· article· en· W6888394 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald Joe, André Kushniruk, Elizabeth M. Borycki, Brian Armstrong, Tony Otto, Kendall Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMedical educationArchitectureSoftwareElectronic medical recordMedical softwareMedical recordComputer scienceEngineering managementSoftware engineeringMedicineSoftware developmentEngineeringPsychologyMedical emergencyPedagogySoftware construction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the implementation of an Electronic Medical Record (EMR) which has been redesigned specifically for the purposes of teaching medical and other health professional students. Currently available EMR software is designed specifically for use in actual practice settings and not for the needs of students and educators. The authors identified many unique requirements of an EMR in order to satisfy the educational goals unique to the electronic medium. This paper describes the specific architecture and many of the unique features of the EMR implemented for the University of British Columbia (UBC) Medical School program for teaching medical students. This implementation describes 200 participating students participating in a hands-on use of an EMR with a single standardized patient case. The participating students were distributed across three physical sites in the Province of British Columbia UBC curricula in December, 2007.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.441 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207