MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114202723 · doi:10.1260/2040-2295.5.3.347

Discrete Event Simulation of Patient Admissions to a Neurovascular Unit

2014· article· en· W2114202723 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shoshana Hahn‐Goldberg, Eric K.H. Chow, E Appel, Fremstad Ko, Pei Ting Tan, Maureen Gavin, Tina T. Ng, Howard Abrams, Leanne K. Casaubon, Michael Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Healthcare Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersKrembil Foundation
KeywordsNeurovascular bundleMedicineNeurologyStroke (engine)NeurosurgeryUnit (ring theory)Emergency medicineMedical emergencyDiscrete event simulationSurgerySimulationComputer sciencePsychologyEngineeringPsychiatryMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence exists that clinical outcomes improve for stroke patients admitted to specialized Stroke Units. The Toronto Western Hospital created a Neurovascular Unit (NVU) using beds from general internal medicine, Neurology and Neurosurgery to care for patients with stroke and acute neurovascular conditions. Using patient-level data for NVU-eligible patients, a discrete event simulation was created to study changes in patient flow and length of stay pre- and post-NVU implementation. Varying patient volumes and resources were tested to determine the ideal number of beds under various conditions. In the first year of operation, the NVU admitted 507 patients, over 66% of NVU-eligible patient volumes. With the introduction of the NVU, length of stay decreased by around 8%. Scenario testing showed that the current level of 20 beds is sufficient for accommodating the current demand and would continue to be sufficient with an increase in demand of up to 20%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Healthcare EngineeringSame topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207