Enhancing Health Equity by Predicting Missed Appointments in Health Care: Machine Learning Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The phenomenon of patients missing booked appointments without canceling them-known as Did Not Show (DNS), Did Not Attend (DNA), or Failed To Attend (FTA)-has a detrimental effect on patients' health and results in massive health care resource wastage. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop machine learning (ML) models and evaluate their performance in predicting the likelihood of DNS for hospital outpatient appointments at the MidCentral District Health Board (MDHB) in New Zealand. METHODS: We sourced 5 years of MDHB outpatient records (a total of 1,080,566 outpatient visits) to build the ML prediction models. We developed 3 ML models using logistic regression, random forest, and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost). Subsequently, 10-fold cross-validation and hyperparameter tuning were deployed to minimize model bias and boost the algorithms' prediction strength. All models were evaluated against accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve metrics. RESULTS: Based on 5 years of MDHB data, the best prediction classifier was XGBoost, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.92, sensitivity of 0.83, and specificity of 0.85. The patients' DNS history, age, ethnicity, and appointment lead time significantly contributed to DNS prediction. An ML system trained on a large data set can produce useful levels of DNS prediction. CONCLUSIONS: This research is one of the very first published studies that use ML technologies to assist with DNS management in New Zealand. It is a proof of concept and could be used to benchmark DNS predictions for the MDHB and other district health boards. We encourage conducting additional qualitative research to investigate the root cause of DNS issues and potential solutions. Addressing DNS using better strategies potentially can result in better utilization of health care resources and improve health equity.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".