Designing the blood supply chain: how much, how and where?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The topology of the blood supply chain network can take different forms in different settings, depending on geography, politics, costs, etc. Many developed countries are moving towards centralized networks. The goal for all blood distribution networks, regardless of topology, remains the same: to satisfy demand at minimal cost and minimal wastage. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Mathematically, the blood supply system design can be viewed as a location-allocation problem, where the aim is to find the optimal location of collection and production facilities and to assign hospitals to them to minimize total system cost. However, most location-allocation models in the blood supply chain literature omit several important aspects of the problem, such as selecting amongst differing methods of collection and production. In this paper, we present a location-allocation model that takes these factors into account to support strategic decision-making at different levels of centralization. RESULTS: Our approach is illustrated by a case study (Colombia) to redesign the national blood supply chain under a range of realistic travel time limitations. For each scenario, an optimal supply chain configuration is obtained, together with optimal collection and production strategies. We show that the total costs for the most centralized scenario are around 40% of the costs for the least centralized scenario. CONCLUSION: Centralized systems are more efficient than decentralized systems. However, the latter may be preferred for political or geographical reasons. Our model allows decision-makers to redesign the supply network per local circumstances and determine optimal collection and production strategies that minimize total costs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".