MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965918706 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1908.00149

Response time optimization for drone-delivered automated external defibrillators

2019· preprint· en· W2965918706 on OpenAlexaffabout
Justin J. Boutilier, Timothy C. Y. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFacility Location and Emergency Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroneBaseline (sea)Queueing theoryComputer scienceSolverExploitPercentileQueueResponse timeReal-time computingSimulationOperations researchEngineeringComputer securityStatisticsMathematicsComputer networkOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) claims over 400,000 lives each year in North America and is one of the most time-sensitive medical emergencies. Drone-delivered automated external defibrillators (AEDs) have the potential to be a transformative innovation in the provision of emergency care for OHCA. In this paper, we propose a simulation-optimization framework to minimize the total number of drones required to meet a pre-specified response time goal, while guaranteeing a sufficient number of drones are located at each base. To do this, we develop a location-queuing model that is based on the p-median architecture, where each base constitutes an explicit M/M/d queue, and that incorporates estimated baseline response times to the demand points. We then develop a reformulation technique that exploits the baseline response times, allowing us to solve real-world instances to optimality using an off-the-shelf solver. To test our model, we develop a two-stage machine learning approach to simulate both the locations and baseline response times for future OHCAs. We demonstrate the application of our framework using eight years of real data from an area covering 26,000 square kilometres around Toronto, Canada. A modest number of drones are required to significantly reduce response times in all regions. Furthermore, an objective function focused on improving the 90th percentile is well-suited for use in practice because the model reduces the entire response time distribution, while providing equitable coverage in both cities and rural areas. Overall, this paper provides a realistic framework that can be leveraged by healthcare providers seeking to implement a drone network.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicFacility Location and Emergency ManagementFrench-language works237,207