Predicting the target specialty of referral notes to estimate per-specialty wait times with machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, in Canada, existing health administrative data and hospital-inputted portal systems are used to measure the wait times to receiving a procedure or therapy after a specialist visit. However, due to missing and inconsistent labelling, estimating the wait time prior to seeing a specialist physician requires costly manual coding to label primary care referral notes. METHODS: In this work, we represent the notes using word-count vectors and develop a logistic regression machine learning model to automatically label the target specialist physician from a primary care referral note. These labels are not available in the administrative system. We also study the effects of note length (measured in number of tokens) and dataset size (measured in number of notes per target specialty) on model performance to help other researchers determine if such an approach may be feasible for them. We then calculate the wait time by linking the specialist type from a primary care referral to a full consultation visit held in Ontario, Canada health administrative data. RESULTS: For many target specialties, we can reliably (F1Score ≥ 0.70) predict the target specialist type. Doing so enables the automated measurement of wait time from family physician referral to specialist physician visit. Of the six specialties with wait times estimated using both 2008 and 2015 data, two had a substantial increase (defined as a change such that the original value lay outside the 95% confidence interval) in both median and 75th percentile wait times, one had a substantial decrease in both median and 75th percentile wait times, and three has non-substantial increases. CONCLUSIONS: Automating these wait time measurements, which had previously been too time consuming and costly to evaluate at a population level, can be useful for health policy researchers studying the effects of policy decisions on patient access to care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".