Got (Optimal) Milk? Pooling Donations in Human Milk Banks with Machine Learning and Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem definition: Human donor milk provides critical nutrition for millions of infants who are born preterm each year. Donor milk is collected, processed, and distributed by milk banks. The macronutrient content of donor milk is directly linked to infant brain development and can vary substantially across donations, which is why multiple donations are typically pooled together to create a final product. Approximately half of all milk banks in North America do not have the resources to measure the macronutrient content of donor milk, which means pooling is done heuristically. For these milk banks, an approach is needed to optimize pooling decisions. Methodology/results: We propose a data-driven framework combining machine learning and optimization to predict macronutrient content of donations and then optimally combine them in pools, respectively. In collaboration with our partner milk bank, we collect a data set of milk to train our predictive models. We rigorously simulate milk bank practices to fine-tune our optimization models and evaluate operational scenarios such as changes in donation habits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, we conduct a year-long trial implementation, where we observe the current nurse-led pooling practices followed by our intervention. Pools created by our approach meet clinical macronutrient targets approximately 31% more often than the baseline, although taking 60% less recipe creation time. Managerial implications: This is the first paper in the broader blending literature that combines machine learning and optimization. We demonstrate that such pipelines are feasible to implement in a healthcare setting and can yield significant improvements over current practices. Our insights can guide practitioners in any application area seeking to implement machine learning and optimization-based decision support. History: This paper has been accepted as part of the 2023 Manufacturing & Service Operations Management Practice-Based Research Competition. Supplemental Material: The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.0455 .
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".