MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907540633 · doi:10.5430/jha.v8n1p34

Application of a physical science model in the analysis of patient flow in a hospital

2018· article· en· W2907540633 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sinval Lins Silva, J. M. A. Figueiredo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Quality (philosophy)Computer scienceFlow (mathematics)ComprehensionOperations researchHealth careControl (management)Operations managementIndustrial engineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most relevant aspects in hospital management relies on how to properly control and predict the patient flow, that is, the paths and the time sequence a whole set of patients run in their journey inside the hospital, as they look for treatment. This issue is of the utmost importance since it interferes in the quality of the healthcare delivered to a person and also has a huge impact on both the costs for the patient and the operational costs for the hospital. This work intends to collaborate with the comprehension of the patient flow analysis and to offer a mathematical model analogous to a physical model capable of, qualitatively at first sight, describing the main variables and properties of this flow. We also present the logical elements that allow the manager to develop quantitative flow evaluations adaptable to a specific institution, based on local measurements of the variables described here. This theoretical formulation can directly be applied to practical situations concerning the management of patient flow. The relevant variables and their mathematical relations can be used by the manager in order to quantify each relevant patient circuit in a hospital. This way, it is expected that recurring problems derived from the unwanted variations in the patient flow can be anticipated and corrected by the manager.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.399 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicQuality and Safety in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207