Nonlinear Modelling for Predicting Patient Presentation Rates for Mass Gatherings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionMass gatherings are common in Australia. The interplay of variables, including crowd density and behavior, weather, and the consumption of alcohol and other drugs, can pose a unique set of challenges to attendees' well-being. On-site health services are available at most mass gatherings and reduce the strain on community health facilities. In order to efficiently plan and manage these services, it is important to be able to predict the number and type of presenting problems at mass gatherings.ProblemThere is a lack of reliable tools to predict patient presentations at mass gatherings. While a number of factors have been identified as having an influence on attendees' health, the exact contribution of these variables to patient load is poorly understood. Furthermore, predicting patient load at mass gatherings is an inherently nonlinear problem, due to the nonlinear relationships previously observed between patient presentations and many event characteristics. METHODS: Data were collected at 216 Australian mass gatherings and included event type, crowd demographics, and weather. Nonlinear models were constructed using regression trees. The full data set was used to construct each model and the model was then used to predict the response variable for each event. Nine-fold cross validation was used to estimate the error that may be expected when applying the model in practice. RESULTS: The mean training errors for total patient presentations were very high; however, the distribution of errors per event was highly skewed, with small errors for the majority of events and a few large errors for a small number of events with a high number of presentations. The error was five or less for 40% of events and 15 or less for 85% of events. The median error was 6.9 presentations per event. CONCLUSION: This study built on previous research by undertaking nonlinear modeling, which provides a more realistic representation of the interactions between event variables. The developed models were less useful for predicting patient presentation numbers for very large events; however, they were generally useful for more typical, smaller scale community events. Further research is required to confirm this conclusion and develop models suitable for very large international events.Arbon P, Bottema M, Zeitz K, Lund A, Turris S, Anikeeva O, Steenkamp M. Nonlinear modelling for predicting patient presentation rates for mass gatherings. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(4):362-367.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".