MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Data Envelopment Analysis in Healthcare Management

2024· book-chapter· en· W4390922060 on OpenAlex
Narasimha Rao Vajjhala, Philip Eappen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in business information systems and analytics book series · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisBenchmarkingHealth careNonparametric statisticsOutlierComputer scienceOperations researchOperations managementManagement scienceBusinessEngineeringEconometricsEconomicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter explores the applications, contributions, limitations, and challenges of data envelopment analysis (DEA) in healthcare management. DEA, a non-parametric method used for evaluating the efficiency of decision-making units, has found extensive applications in healthcare sectors such as hospital management, nursing, and outpatient services. The review consolidates findings from a broad range of studies, highlighting DEA's significant contributions to efficiency measurement, benchmarking, resource allocation and optimization, and performance evaluation. However, despite DEA's robust applications, the chapter also identifies several limitations and challenges, including the selection of inputs and outputs, sensitivity to outliers, inability to handle statistical noise, lack of inherent uncertainty measures, homogeneity assumption, and the static nature of traditional DEA models. These challenges underscore the need for further research and methodological advancements in applying DEA in healthcare management.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.007
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.291 · 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