A greedy-tabu approach to the patient bed assignment problem in the Hospital Universitario San Ignacio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient Bed Assignment (PBA) consists of assigning patients to hospital beds according to specific requirements such as patient diagnosis, equipment requirements, age and gender policies, among others. We worked in conjunction with the Hospital Universitario San Ignacio (HUSI) with the goal of designing an application to support decision-making during the bed assignment process. We introduced a mathematical model for the PBA. We used Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the weights attributed to each part of the objective function. Due to the long execution time required, we used a Greedy Algorithm and Tabu Search (TS) to optimize the match between the patient’s requirements and the characteristics of the assigned bed. To test the algorithms, we created 15 test instances of various sizes. The results showed that the gap between the value of the objective function resulting from using the Greedy/TS in comparison with the optimal solution is on average 6.2%. Also, the TS takes 84% less time than the MILP for medium and large instances. We collected data from real life instances and compared the actual method with the designed metaheuristic. On average, the value of the objective function resulting from using the proposed Greedy/Tabu algorithm is 8.6% higher.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".