CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 118Blockchain Technology in Education and LearningInnovations in Medical EducationBlockchain Technology Applications and Security

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Blockchain Technology: A Data Framework to Improve Validity, Trust, and Accountability of Information Exchange in Health Professions Education

Funk, Eric, Riddell, Jeff, Ankel, Felix, Cabrera, Daniel·2018·Academic Medicine
DOI 10.1097/acm.0000000000002326
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Health professions educators face multiple challenges, among them the need to adapt educational methods to new technologies. In the last decades, multiple new digital platforms have appeared in the learning arena, including massive open online courses and social-media-based education. The major critique of these novel methods is the lack of the ability to ascertain the origin, validity, and accountability of the knowledge that is created, shared, and acquired. Recently, a novel technology based on secured data storage and transmission, called blockchain, has emerged as a way to generate networks where validity, trust, and accountability can be created. Conceptually, blockchain is an open, public, distributed, and secure digital registry where information transactions are secured and have a clear origin, explicit pathways, and concrete value. Health professions education based on blockchain will potentially allow improved tracking of content and the individuals who create it, quantify educational impact on multiple generations of learners, and build a relative value of educational interventions. Furthermore, institutions adopting blockchain technology would be able to provide certification and credentialing of health care professionals with no intermediaries. There is potential for blockchain to significantly change the future of health professions education and radically transform how patients, professionals, educators, and learners interact around safe, valid, and accountable information.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000002326

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 118

Related

Metadata

Authors
Funk, E., Riddell, J., Ankel, F., & Cabrera, D.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Cabrera, Daniel
ORCID
Venue
Academic Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2018-12
Volume
93
Issue
12
Pages
1791-1794
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/acm.0000000000002326
OpenAlex
W2808136953
Cited by
118
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 2
FWCI
20.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology in Education and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
Keywords
blockchain, health professions education, information validity, trust, accountability, distributed ledger technology, data provenance
MeSH terms
Health Occupations, Humans, Social Responsibility, Educational Technology, Information Management, Trust

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review