Leveraging machine learning and prescriptive analytics to improve operating room throughput
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Successful days are defined as days when four cases were completed before 3:45pm, and overtime hours are defined as time spent after 3:45pm. Based on these definitions and the 460 unsuccessful days isolated from the dataset, 465 hours, 22 minutes, and 30 seconds total overtime hours were calculated. To reduce the increasing wait lists for hip and knee surgeries, we aim to verify whether it is possible to add a 5th surgery, to the typical 4 arthroplasty surgery per day schedule, without adding extra overtime hours and cost at our clinical institution. To predict 5th cases, 301 successful days were isolated and used to fit linear regression models for each individual day. After using the models' predictions, it was determined that increasing performance to a 77% success rate can lead to approximately 35 extra cases per year, while performing optimally at a 100% success rate can translate to 56 extra cases per year at no extra cost. Overall, this shows the extent of resources wasted by overtime costs, and the potential for their use in reducing long wait times. Future work can explore optimal staffing procedures to account for these extra cases.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".