Improving Resource Utilization for Arthroplasty Care by Leveraging Machine Learning and Optimization: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a growing demand for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) surgery. The applications of machine learning (ML), mathematical optimization, and computer simulation have the potential to improve efficiency of TJA care delivery through outcome prediction and surgical scheduling optimization, easing the burden on health-care systems. The purpose of this study was to evaluate strategies using advances in analytics and computational modeling that may improve planning and the overall efficiency of TJA care. Methods: A systematic review including MEDLINE, Embase, and IEEE Xplore databases was completed from inception to October 3, 2022, for identification of studies generating ML models for TJA length of stay, duration of surgery, and hospital readmission prediction. A scoping review of optimization strategies in elective surgical scheduling was also conducted. Results: Twenty studies were included for evaluating ML predictions and 17 in the scoping review of scheduling optimization. Among studies generating linear or logistic control models alongside ML models, only 1 found a control model to outperform its ML counterpart. Furthermore, neural networks performed superior to or at the same level as conventional ML models in all but 1 study. Implementation of mathematical and simulation strategies improved the optimization efficiency when compared to traditional scheduling methods at the operational level. Conclusions: High-performing predictive ML-based models have been developed for TJA, as have mathematical strategies for elective surgical scheduling optimization. By leveraging artificial intelligence for outcome prediction and surgical optimization, there exist greater opportunities for improved resource utilization and cost-savings in TJA than when using traditional modeling and scheduling methods.
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 | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".