A Prediction-Based Approach for Online Dynamic Appointment Scheduling: A Case Study in Radiotherapy Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient scheduling is a difficult task involving stochastic factors, such as the unknown arrival times of patients. Similarly, the scheduling of radiotherapy for cancer treatments needs to handle patients with different urgency levels when allocating resources. High-priority patients may arrive at any time, and there must be resources available to accommodate them. A common solution is to reserve a flat percentage of treatment capacity for emergency patients. However, this solution can result in overdue treatments for urgent patients, a failure to fully exploit treatment capacity, and delayed treatments for low-priority patients. This problem is especially severe in large and crowded hospitals. In this paper, we propose a prediction-based approach for online dynamic radiotherapy scheduling that dynamically adapts the present scheduling decision based on each incoming patient and the current allocation of resources. Our approach is based on a regression model trained to recognize the links between patients’ arrival patterns and their ideal waiting time in optimal off-line solutions when all future arrivals are known in advance. When our prediction-based approach is compared with flat-reservation policies, it does a better job of preventing overdue treatments for emergency patients and also maintains comparable waiting times for the other patients. We also demonstrate how our proposed approach supports explainability and interpretability in scheduling decisions using Shapley additive explanation values. History: Accepted by Erwin Pesch, Area Editor for Heuristic Search & Approximation Algorithms. Funding: Mitacs Accélération IT26995 and Canada Research Chair in Analytics and Logistics in Healthcare (HANALOG). Supplemental Material: The software that supports the findings of this study is available within the paper and its Supplemental Information ( https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/suppl/10.1287/ijoc.2023.1289 ) as well as from the IJOC GitHub software repository ( https://github.com/INFORMSJoC/2021.0342 ) at ( http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7579533 ).
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".