Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37654094›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2023

The standard problem.

Enrico Coiera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Standards in action: historical and current perspectives.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Enrico CoieraAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6444-6584

Funding

Centre for Research Excellence in Digital Health GNT2008645National Health and Medical ResearchNHMRC
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis article proposes a framework to support the scientific research of standards so that they can be better measured, evaluated, and designed.

methodsBeginning with the notion of common models, the framework describes the general standard problem-the seeming impossibility of creating a singular, persistent, and definitive standard which is not subject to change over time in an open system.

resultsThe standard problem arises from uncertainty driven by variations in operating context, standard quality, differences in implementation, and drift over time. As a result, fitting work using conformance services is needed to repair these gaps between a standard and what is required for real-world use. To guide standards design and repair, a framework for measuring performance in context is suggested, based on signal detection theory and technomarkers. Based on the type of common model in operation, different conformance strategies are identified: (1) Universal conformance (all agents access the same standard); (2) Mediated conformance (an interoperability layer supports heterogeneous agents); and (3) Localized conformance (autonomous adaptive agents manage their own needs). Conformance methods include incremental design, modular design, adaptors, and creating interactive and adaptive agents. DISCUSSION: Machine learning should have a major role in adaptive fitting. Research to guide the choice and design of conformance services may focus on the stability and homogeneity of shared tasks, and whether common models are shared ahead of time or adjusted at task time.

conclusionThis analysis conceptually decouples interoperability and standardization. While standards facilitate interoperability, interoperability is achievable without standardization.

Indexed as

Reference Standardsinformation standardinteroperabilitymachine learningtechnology evaluation

Identifiers

PMID37654094
PMCPMC10654885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.