MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Emergency Department Wait Time Forecast based on Semantic and Time Series Patterns in COVID-19 Pandemic

2023· article· en· W4390970050 on OpenAlexaff
Zhaohui Liang, Zhiyun Xue, Feng Yang, Sivaramakrishnan Rajaraman, Jimmy Xiangji Huang, Sameer Antani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicTime seriesComputer science2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSeries (stratigraphy)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Emergency departmentVirologyMachine learningMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study introduces a new ensemble architecture to improve the wait time forecast for healthcare service in the emergency department (ED) of hospital. The new model first used a fine-tuned text embedding model to extract the contextual semantic meaning of patients’ chief complaint from the electronic patient records to estimate the degree of case urgency and combined to a recurrent neural network to process the regular ED wait time patterns. Four text embedding models including the universal sentence encoder with DAN and transformer encoders, the NNLM, and the Swivel were used for semantic analysis. The results show that the new ensemble model can reduce the prediction errors maximumly by 20.0% in mean of absolute error (MAE), 46.0% in mean of squared error (MSE), and 26.6% in root mean squared error (RMSE). A 5-fold cross validation verified that the new model is robust to the ED wait time prediction before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conclude that the new model provides an innovative approach to apply semantic analysis of natural language processing to the domain of time series prediction in the healthcare domain.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207