MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389083691 · doi:10.2196/41551

Predictive Dispatch of Volunteer First Responders: Algorithm Development and Validation

2023· article· en· W4389083691 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Khalemsky, Anna Khalemsky, Stephen E. Lankenau, Janna Ataiants, Alexis M. Roth, Gabriela Marcu, David G. Schwartz

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsComputer scienceVolunteerProcess (computing)AlgorithmStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Smartphone-based emergency response apps are increasingly being used to identify and dispatch volunteer first responders (VFRs) to medical emergencies to provide faster first aid, which is associated with better prognoses. Volunteers' availability and willingness to respond are uncertain, leading in recent studies to response rates of 17% to 47%. Dispatch algorithms that select volunteers based on their estimated time of arrival (ETA) without considering the likelihood of response may be suboptimal due to a large percentage of alerts wasted on VFRs with shorter ETA but a low likelihood of response, resulting in delays until a volunteer who will actually respond can be dispatched. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to improve the decision-making process of human emergency medical services dispatchers and autonomous dispatch algorithms by presenting a novel approach for predicting whether a VFR will respond to or ignore a given alert. METHODS: We developed and compared 4 analytical models to predict VFRs' response behaviors based on emergency event characteristics, volunteers' demographic data and previous experience, and condition-specific parameters. We tested these 4 models using 4 different algorithms applied on actual demographic and response data from a 12-month study of 112 VFRs who received 993 alerts to respond to 188 opioid overdose emergencies. Model 4 used an additional dynamically updated synthetic dichotomous variable, frequent responder, which reflects the responder's previous behavior. RESULTS: The highest accuracy (260/329, 79.1%) of prediction that a VFR will ignore an alert was achieved by 2 models that used events data, VFRs' demographic data, and their previous response experience, with slightly better overall accuracy (248/329, 75.4%) for model 4, which used the frequent responder indicator. Another model that used events data and VFRs' previous experience but did not use demographic data provided a high-accuracy prediction (277/329, 84.2%) of ignored alerts but a low-accuracy prediction (153/329, 46.5%) of responded alerts. The accuracy of the model that used events data only was unacceptably low. The J48 decision tree algorithm provided the best accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: VFR dispatch has evolved in the last decades, thanks to technological advances and a better understanding of VFR management. The dispatch of substitute responders is a common approach in VFR systems. Predicting the response behavior of candidate responders in advance of dispatch can allow any VFR system to choose the best possible response candidates based not only on ETA but also on the probability of actual response. The integration of the probability to respond into the dispatch algorithm constitutes a new generation of individual dispatch, making this one of the first studies to harness the power of predictive analytics for VFR dispatch. Our findings can help VFR network administrators in their continual efforts to improve the response times of their networks and to save lives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→