Developing a Novel Integrated Generalised Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to Evaluate Hospitals Providing Stroke Care Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroke is the biggest cause of adult disability and the third biggest cause of death in the US. Stroke is a medical emergency, and the treatment given in the early hours is important in shaping the patient's long-term recovery and prognosis. Despite the fact that substantial attention has been dedicated to this complex and difficult issue in healthcare, novel strategies such as operation research-based approaches have hardly been used to deal with the difficult challenges associated with stroke. This study proposes a novel approach with data envelopment analysis (DEA) and multi-objective linear programming (MOLP) in hospitals that provide stroke care services to select the most efficient approach, which will be a new experiment in literature perception. DEA and MOLP are widely used for performance evaluation and efficiency measurement. Despite their similarities and common concepts, the two disciplines have evolved separately. The generalised DEA (GDEA) cannot incorporate the preferences of decision-makers (DMs) preferences and historical efficiency data. In contrast, MOLP can incorporate the DM's preferences into the decision-making process. We transform the GDEA model into MOLP through the max-ordering approach to (i) solve the problem interactively; (ii) use the step method (STEM) and consider DM's preferences; (iii) eliminate the need for predetermined preference information; and (iv) apply the most preferred solution (MPS) to identify the most efficient approach. A case study of hospitals that provide stroke care services is taken as an example to illustrate the potential application of the proposed approach method.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".