Sci‐Fri AM: Quality, Safety, and Professional Issues 04: Predicting waiting times in Radiation Oncology using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe a method for predicting waiting times in radiation oncology. Machine learning is a powerful predictive modelling tool that benefits from large, potentially complex, datasets. The essence of machine learning is to predict future outcomes by learning from previous experience. The patient waiting experience remains one of the most vexing challenges facing healthcare. Waiting time uncertainty can cause patients, who are already sick and in pain, to worry about when they will receive the care they need. In radiation oncology, patients typically experience three types of waiting: Waiting at home for their treatment plan to be prepared Waiting in the waiting room for daily radiotherapy Waiting in the waiting room to see a physician in consultation or follow‐up These waiting periods are difficult for staff to predict and only rough estimates are typically provided, based on personal experience. In the present era of electronic health records, waiting times need not be so uncertain. At our centre, we have incorporated the electronic treatment records of all previously‐treated patients into our machine learning model. We found that the Random Forest Regression model provides the best predictions for daily radiotherapy treatment waiting times (type 2). Using this model, we achieved a median residual (actual minus predicted value) of 0.25 minutes and a standard deviation residual of 6.5 minutes. The main features that generated the best fit model (from most to least significant) are: Allocated time, median past duration, fraction number and the number of treatment fields.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.009 |
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".