Difference between revisions of "Template:Article of the week"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Updated article of the week text.)
(Updated article of the week text)
 
(450 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:HL7 Reference Information Model.jpg|260px]]</div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Niszczota EconBusRev23 9-2.png|240px]]</div>
'''[[Health Level Seven]]''' ('''HL7''') is an international non-profit volunteer-based organization involved with the development of international health care informatics interoperability standards. The HL7 community consists of health care experts and information scientists collaborating to create standards for the exchange, management, and integration of electronic health care information. The term "HL7" is also used to refer to some of the specific standards created by the organization (e.g., HL7 v2.x, v3.0, HL7 RIM). HL7 and its members provide a framework (and related standards) for the exchange, integration, sharing, and retrieval of electronic health information. v2.x of the standards, which support clinical practice and the management, delivery, and evaluation of health services, are the most commonly used in the world.
'''"[[Journal:Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence|Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence]]"'''


In total HL7 develops conceptual standards (e.g., HL7 RIM), document standards (e.g., HL7 CDA), application standards (e.g., HL7 CCOW), and messaging standards (e.g., HL7 v2.x and v3.0). Messaging standards are particularly important because they define how information is packaged and communicated from one party to another. Such standards set the language, structure, and data types required for seamless integration from one system to another. HL7 v2.x and 3.0 are the primary standards from the organization. They provide a framework for data exchange among clinical and healthcare systems in an ideal format. The 2.x standards are flexible, with several implementation options, loosely geared towards "clinical interface specialists" working to move clinical data in the application space. The 3.0 standards are designed to be more fixed, precise, and international, geared towards governments and end users of clinical applications. ('''[[Health Level Seven|Full article...]]''')<br />
The introduction of [[ChatGPT]] has fuelled a public debate on the appropriateness of using generative [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) ([[large language model]]s or LLMs) in work, including a debate on how they might be used (and abused) by researchers. In the current work, we test whether delegating parts of the research process to LLMs leads people to distrust researchers and devalues their scientific work. Participants (''N'' = 402) considered a researcher who delegates elements of the research process to a PhD student or LLM and rated three aspects of such delegation. Firstly, they rated whether it is morally appropriate to do so. Secondly, they judged whether—after deciding to delegate the research process—they would trust the scientist (who decided to delegate) to oversee future projects ... ('''[[Journal:Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence|Full article...]]''')<br />
<br />
''Recently featured'':
''Recently featured'': [[ISO/IEC 17025]], [[Good Automated Manufacturing Practice]], [[End-stage renal disease facility]]
{{flowlist |
* [[Journal:Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach|Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach]]
* [[Journal:Knowledge of internal quality control for laboratory tests among laboratory personnel working in a biochemistry department of a tertiary care center: A descriptive cross-sectional study|Knowledge of internal quality control for laboratory tests among laboratory personnel working in a biochemistry department of a tertiary care center: A descriptive cross-sectional study]]
* [[Journal:Sigma metrics as a valuable tool for effective analytical performance and quality control planning in the clinical laboratory: A retrospective study|Sigma metrics as a valuable tool for effective analytical performance and quality control planning in the clinical laboratory: A retrospective study]]
}}

Latest revision as of 15:26, 20 May 2024

Fig1 Niszczota EconBusRev23 9-2.png

"Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence"

The introduction of ChatGPT has fuelled a public debate on the appropriateness of using generative artificial intelligence (AI) (large language models or LLMs) in work, including a debate on how they might be used (and abused) by researchers. In the current work, we test whether delegating parts of the research process to LLMs leads people to distrust researchers and devalues their scientific work. Participants (N = 402) considered a researcher who delegates elements of the research process to a PhD student or LLM and rated three aspects of such delegation. Firstly, they rated whether it is morally appropriate to do so. Secondly, they judged whether—after deciding to delegate the research process—they would trust the scientist (who decided to delegate) to oversee future projects ... (Full article...)
Recently featured:

Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Article_of_the_week&oldid=63646"