Process Mining the Performance of a Real-Time Healthcare 4.0 Systems Using Conditional Survival Models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the world moves into the exciting age of Healthcare 4.0, it is essential that patients and clinicians have confidence and reassurance that the real-time clinical decision support systems being used throughout their care guarantee robustness and optimal quality of care. However, current systems involving autonomic behaviour and those with no prior clinical feedback, have generally to date had little focus on demonstrating robustness in the use of data and final output, thus generating a lack of confidence. This paper wishes to address this challenge by introducing a new process mining approach based on a statistically robust methodology that relies on the utilisation of conditional survival models for the purpose of evaluating the performance of Healthcare 4.0 systems and the quality of the care provided. Its effectiveness is demonstrated by analysing the performance of a clinical decision support system operating in an intensive care setting with the goal to monitor ventilated patients in real-time and to notify clinicians if the patient is predicted at risk of receiving injurious mechanical ventilation. Additionally, we will also demonstrate how the same metrics can be used for evaluating the patient quality of care. The proposed methodology can be used to analyse the performance of any Healthcare 4.0 system and the quality of care provided to the patient.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it