Preventative maintenance and unscheduled downtime from an economic perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A spreadsheet-based model for economically characterizing the operation of a radiation treatment program has been used to perform a quantitative financial analysis of scheduled and unscheduled downtime. The incremental cost of downtime is broken down into three categories: remuneration of in-house or third party service technologists, decreased patient capacity, and local operating procedures for dealing with downtime. Different service arrangements and operating procedures are simulated to demonstrate the financial cost of treatment machine unavailability due to either preventative maintenance or unexpected breakdown. Depending on the service arrangement and operating policies for accommodating downtime, the combined cost of scheduled and unscheduled downtime (at 5%) can exceed 10% of the total cost of the radiation treatment program. It has also been demonstrated that the greatest cost component of downtime is decreased patient capacity, which can exceed $400,000 (CAN) when unscheduled downtime reaches 5%. The interpretation of this cost depends on the funding environment. Although the emphasis of this study has been the financial consequences of downtime, there are other factors which must be considered when developing policies and procedures for accommodating downtime such as effects on treatment, patient convenience and quality of life for staff. Even though the numerical results are strictly valid only within the context of the simulations performed, they do provide a broad framework within which medical physicists can make recommendations regarding service support and downtime.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".