Process mining is an underutilized clinical research tool in transfusion medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To understand inventory performance, transfusion services commonly use key performance indicators (KPIs) as summary descriptors of inventory efficiency that are graphed, trended, and used to benchmark institutions. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Here, we summarize current limitations in KPI-based evaluation of blood bank inventory efficiency and propose process mining as an ideal methodology for application to inventory management research to improve inventory flows and performance. RESULTS: The transit of a blood product from inventory receipt to final disposition is complex and relates to many internal and external influences, and KPIs may be inadequate to fully understand the complexity of the blood supply chain and how units interact with its processes. Process mining lends itself well to analysis of blood bank inventories, and modern laboratory information systems can track nearly all of the complex processes that occur in the blood bank. CONCLUSION: Process mining is an analytical tool already used in other industries and can be applied to blood bank inventory management and research through laboratory information systems data using commercial applications. Although the current understanding of real blood bank inventories is value-centric through KPIs, it potentially can be understood from a process-centric lens using process mining.
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 | 0.057 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".