Forecasting Institutional LINAC Utilization in Response to Varying Workload
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesPandemics, natural disasters, and other unforeseen circumstances can cause short-term variation in radiotherapy utilization. In this study, we aim to develop a model to forecast linear accelerator (LINAC) utilization during periods of varying workloads. Methods: Using computed tomography (CT)-simulation data and the rate of new LINAC appointment bookings in the preceding week as input parameters, a multiple linear regression model to forecast LINAC utilization over a 15-working day horizon was developed and tested on institutional data. Results: Future LINAC utilization was estimated in our training dataset with a forecasting error of 3.3%, 5.9%, and 7.2% on days 5, 10, and 15, respectively. The model identified significant variations (≥5% absolute differences) in LINAC utilization with an accuracy of 69%, 62%, and 60% on days 5, 10, and 15, respectively. The results were similar in the validation dataset with forecasting errors of 3.4%, 5.3%, and 6.2% and accuracy of 67%, 60%, and 58% on days 5, 10, and 15, respectively. These results compared favorably to moving average and exponential smoothing forecasting techniques. Conclusions: The developed linear regression model was able to accurately forecast future LINAC utilization based on LINAC booking rate and CT simulation data, and has been incorporated into our institutional dashboard for broad distribution. Advances in knowledge: Our proposed linear regression model is a practical and intuitive approach to forecasting short-term LINAC utilization, which can be used for resource planning and allocation during periods with varying LINAC workloads.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".