ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
Medical Science Data Value Evaluation Model: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Telemedicine App for Nonrigid Facial Rehabilitation Training Enhanced by Efficient Fully Convolutional Neural Network With Residual Network (EffiFCNN-ResNet) to Improve Accessibility for Patients With Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Cancer: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Trial
- A sequential mixed-methods study to develop and validate the nursing infection control effectiveness index (NICEI).BMC nursing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Medical science data hold significant value, and open platforms play a crucial role in unlocking this potential. While relevant platforms are being developed, the overall usage of these data values remains limited. Objective: This study aims to propose a set of practical and effective data value evaluation processes and methods for medical science data open platforms, enabling them to manage and unlock the value of these data. Methods: Integrating the information system success model, technology acceptance model, and consumer perceived value theory, a set of medical science data value assessment index systems was developed by adopting the literature review and expert survey methods. Data from 10 domestic and international open platforms were collected and empirically analyzed using the entropy-weighted Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution technique. Results: Based on the scores of each indicator, the intragroup correlation coefficient was calculated to be 0.489, indicating consistency in the evaluation. The highest information entropy values and weights determined using the entropy weighting method were the number of datasets (0.70, 17.68%), data timeliness (0.77, 13.44%), search comprehensiveness (0.78, 12.92%), and system responsiveness (0.80, 11.55%), respectively. Based on the weighted analysis, the platform with the highest overall score was the National Population Health Sciences Data Center, with a score of 62.32. Conclusions: The evaluation index system and model developed can be used not only to optimize the platform's data value evaluation processes, but also to enhance the platform's overall data value and encourage users to reuse data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.