ONLINE CAPACITY PLANNING FOR REHABILITATION TREATMENTS: AN APPROXIMATE DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING APPROACH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We study an online capacity planning problem in which arriving patients require a series of appointments at several departments, within a certain access time target. This research is motivated by a study of rehabilitation planning practices at the Sint Maartenskliniek hospital (the Netherlands). In practice, the prescribed treatments and activities are typically booked starting in the first available week, leaving no space for urgent patients who require a series of appointments at a short notice. This leads to the rescheduling of appointments or long access times for urgent patients, which has a negative effect on the quality of care and on patient satisfaction. We propose an approach for allocating capacity to patients at the moment of their arrival, in such a way that the total number of requests booked within their corresponding access time targets is maximized. The model considers online decision making regarding multi-priority, multi-appointment, and multi-resource capacity allocation. We formulate this problem as a Markov decision process (MDP) that takes into account the current patient schedule, and future arrivals. We develop an approximate dynamic programming (ADP) algorithm to obtain approximate optimal capacity allocation policies. We provide insights into the characteristics of the optimal policies and evaluate the performance of the resulting policies using simulation.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".