Machine Learning for Evaluating Hospital Mobility: An Italian Case Study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study delves into hospital mobility, understood as an indicator of perceived service quality, across the Italian regions of Apulia and Emilia Romagna, utilizing logistic regression among machine learning techniques. The focus is on how structural, operational, and clinical variables impact patient perceptions of service quality, influencing their healthcare choices. Through the analysis of mobility trends with machine learning, significant differences between regions were uncovered, highlighting the influence of regional context on perceived quality. The integration of SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values into our analysis provided deeper insights into the logistic regression model, elucidating the specific contribution of each variable to perceived healthcare quality. This incorporation of SHAP values underscores the study's commitment to employing advanced, explainable AI techniques to enhance the interpretability and fairness of healthcare service evaluations. The choice of logistic regression elucidated the impact of specific variables on quality perception, offering essential insights for optimizing healthcare resource distribution and underscoring the importance of data-driven strategies to foster more equitable, efficient, and patient-centred healthcare systems. Contributing to the understanding of perceived quality dynamics within the healthcare context, the research paves the way for further investigations into enhancing accessibility and service quality, leveraging machine learning as a tool for improving healthcare services efficiency in diverse regional settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it