The survey data of patients, prescribers, and pharmacists' feedback on ePrescription systems security and privacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the attitudes of the parties (i.e. patients, prescribers, and pharmacists) involved in the ePrescription systems toward the new features and measure the potential benefits of introducing the use of blockchain and machine learning (ML) to strengthen the in-place methods for safely prescribing and dispensing medication. Methods: The survey contains questions about the features introduced in the proposed approach of using blockcahin and ML in the ePrescription system to evaluate the security, privacy, reliability, and availability of the ePrescription information in the system. The study population is comprised of 284 respondents in the patient group, 39 respondents in the pharmacist group, and 27 respondents in the prescriber group, all of whom met the inclusion criteria. The response rate was 80% (226/284) in the patient group, 87% (34/39) in the pharmacist group, and 96% (26/27) in the prescriber group. We removed the responses of participants who did not complete the surevy questions. Conclusion: Our survey showed that a vast majority of respondents in all groups had positive attitudes towards using blockchain and ML algorithms to safely prescribe medications. However, a need for minor improvements regarding the proposed features was identified, and a post-implementation user study is needed to evaluate the proposed ePrescription system in depth.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".