SU‐F‐P‐20: Predicting Waiting Times in Radiation Oncology Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Waiting times remain one of the most vexing patient satisfaction challenges facing healthcare. Waiting time uncertainty can cause patients, who are already sick or in pain, to worry about when they will receive the care they need. These waiting periods are often difficult for staff to predict and only rough estimates are typically provided based on personal experience. This level of uncertainty leaves most patients unable to plan their calendar, making the waiting experience uncomfortable, even painful. In the present era of electronic health records (EHRs), waiting times need not be so uncertain. Extensive EHRs provide unprecedented amounts of data that can statistically cluster towards representative values when appropriate patient cohorts are selected. Predictive modelling, such as machine learning, is a powerful approach that benefits from large, potentially complex, datasets. The essence of machine learning is to predict future outcomes by learning from previous experience. The application of a machine learning algorithm to waiting time data has the potential to produce personalized waiting time predictions such that the uncertainty may be removed from the patient's waiting experience. Methods: In radiation oncology, patients typically experience several types of waiting (eg waiting at home for treatment planning, waiting in the waiting room for oncologist appointments and daily waiting in the waiting room for radiotherapy treatments). A daily treatment wait time model is discussed in this report. To develop a prediction model using our large dataset (with more than 100k sample points) a variety of machine learning algorithms from the Python package sklearn were tested. Results: We found that the Random Forest Regressor model provides the best predictions for daily radiotherapy treatment waiting times. Using this model, we achieved a median residual (actual value minus predicted value) of 0.25 minutes and a standard deviation residual of 6.5 minutes. This means that the majority of our estimates are within 6.5 minutes of the actual wait time. Conclusion: The goal of this project was to define an appropriate machine learning algorithm to estimate waiting times based on the collective knowledge and experience learned from previous patients. Our results offer an opportunity to improve the information that is provided to patients and family members regarding the amount of time they can expect to wait for radiotherapy treatment at our centre. AJ acknowledges support by the CREATE Medical Physics Research Training Network grant of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Grant number: 432290) and from the 2014 Q+ Initiative of the McGill University Health Centre.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".