MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200490832 · doi:10.3390/bioengineering8120207

Developing a Novel Integrated Generalised Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to Evaluate Hospitals Providing Stroke Care Services

2021· article· en· W4200490832 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioengineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisPreferenceComputer scienceProcess (computing)Health careOperations researchPerceptionRisk analysis (engineering)Operations managementBusinessEconomicsEngineeringMathematical optimizationMathematicsPsychologyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.259 · 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