MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062220369 · doi:10.1145/2185395.2185419

A new paradigm for priority patient selection (abstract only)

2012· article· en· W2062220369 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Stanford, Peter Taylor, Ilze Ziediņš

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerformance indicatorBridge (graph theory)Work (physics)Key (lock)Selection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceProcess managementHealth careRisk analysis (engineering)Operations managementOperations researchBusinessMedicineComputer securityArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineeringMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The central purpose of this work is to bridge the gap between two aspects of health care systems: 1) Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for delay in access to care for patient classes, with differing levels of acuity or urgency, specify the fraction of patients needing to be seen by some key time point. 2) Patient classes present themselves for care, and consume health care resources, in a fashion that is totally independent of the KPIs. Rather, they present in a manner determined by the prevalence of the medical condition, at a rate that may vary over time. Treatment times will likewise be determined by medical need and current practice. There is no reason to expect the resulting system performance will adhere to the specified KPIs. The present work presents a new paradigm for priority assignment that enables one to fine-tune the system in order to achieve the delay targets, assuming sufficient capacity exists for at least one such arrangement.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation ReviewSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207