MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386934834 · doi:10.1080/00207543.2023.2259502

An approximate dynamic programming approach to network-based scheduling of chemotherapy treatment sessions

2023· article· en· W4386934834 on OpenAlexafffund
Arturo Wenzel, Antoine Sauré, Alejandro Cataldo, P. Rey, César Sánchez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Production Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo
KeywordsScheduling (production processes)Markov decision processComputer scienceDynamic programmingExploitSession (web analytics)Dynamic priority schedulingJob shop schedulingOperations researchMarkov processOperations managementComputer networkEngineeringQuality of service

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A solution approach is proposed for the interday problem of assigning chemotherapy sessions at a network of treatment centres with the goal of increasing the cost-efficiency of system-wide capacity use. This network-based scheduling procedure is subject to the condition that both the first and last sessions of a patient's treatment protocol are administered at the same centre the patient is referred to by their oncologist. All intermediate sessions may be administered at other centres. It provides a systematic way of identifying effective multi-appointment scheduling policies that exploit the total capacity of a networked system, allowing patients to be treated at centres other than their home centre. The problem is modelled as a Markov decision process which is then solved approximately using techniques of approximate dynamic programming. The benefits of the approach are evaluated and compared through simulation with the existing manual scheduling procedures at two treatment centres in Santiago, Chile. The results suggest that the approach would obtain a 20% reduction in operating costs for the whole system and cut existing first-session waiting times by half. A key conclusion, however, is that a network-based scheduling procedure brings no real benefits if it is not implemented in conjunction with a proactive assignment policy like the one proposed in this paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.213
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Production ResearchSame topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207