An approximate dynamic programming approach to network-based scheduling of chemotherapy treatment sessions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".