Machine learning integrated patient flow simulation: why and how?
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
Stochastic distribution methods were used to construct patient flow simulation sub-models such as patient inflow, length of stay (LoS), cost of treatment (CoT) and clinical pathways (CPs). However, the patient inflow rate demonstrates seasonality, trend, and variation due to natural and human-made factors. LoS, CoT and CPs are determined by social-demographics factors, clinical and laboratory test results, resource availability and healthcare structure. For this reason, patient flow simulation models developed using stochastic methods have limitations including uncertainty, not recognising patient heterogeneity, and not representing personalised and value-based healthcare. This, in turn, results in a low acceptance level and implementation of solutions suggested by patient flow simulation models. On the other hand, machine learning becomes effective in predicting patient inflow, LoS, CoT, and CPs. This paper, therefore, describes why coupling machine learning with patient flow simulation is important, proposes a conceptual architecture for machine learning integrated patient flow simulation and demonstrates its implementation with examples.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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