English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Several dimensions of data quality are described in the literature. One overriding aspect is considered to be the extent to which data represent the truth which is captured by data validity. Unfortunately, a common terminology, well defined concepts, and approved measures are missing in regard to data validity. In particular, there is a need to discuss the gold standard as reference for the data at hand and respective measures. Ultimate gold standard would be the state of the patient which itself is subjected to human and personal interpretations. Usually, an often diverse form of source data is used as gold standard. Based on the concept of the measure, it might be inappropriate differentiating between present and absent while calculating precision and recall. Due to the complexity and uncertainty of many health care related issues, a more sophisticated comparison might be necessary in order to establish relevant and general figures of data quality. Unfortunately, a harmonization in this field is not visible. Further research is needed to establish validated standards to measure data quality.

Opportunities and Pitfalls in the Definition of Data Validity