MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990231686 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2013.21998

Optimizing Resource Allocation and Patient Flow: Process Analysis and Reorganization in Three Chemotherapy Outpatient Clinics*

2010· article· en· W1990231686 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maureen Trudeau, Morgan Holmes, Kelly Bodie, Geoffrey A. Porter, Victoria Sullivan, Joy Tarasuk, Jodie Trembley

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsCancer Care Nova ScotiaNova Scotia Cancer CentreTD Bank GroupCancer Care South EastOccupational Cancer Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbulatoryMedicineAmbulatory careResource allocationChemotherapyOutpatient clinicFamily medicineIntensive care medicineBusinessHealth careEconomic growthSurgeryInternal medicineEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimizing human and physical resources is a major concern for cancer care decision-makers and practitioners. This issue is particularly acute in the context of ambulatory out patient chemotherapy clinics, especially when - as is the case almost everywhere in the industrialized world - the number of people requiring systemic therapy is increasing while budgets, staffing and physical space remain static. Recent initiatives at three hospital-based chemotherapy units - in Halifax, Toronto and Kingston - shed light on the value of process analysis and reorganization for using existing human and physical resources to their full potential, improving patient flow and enhancing patient satisfaction. The steps taken in these settings are broadly applicable to other healthcare settings and would likely result in similar benefits in those environments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207