A systematic literature review of predicting patient discharges using statistical methods and machine learning
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
Discharge planning is integral to patient flow as delays can lead to hospital-wide congestion. Because a structured discharge plan can reduce hospital length of stay while enhancing patient satisfaction, this topic has caught the interest of many healthcare professionals and researchers. Predicting discharge outcomes, such as destination and time, is crucial in discharge planning by helping healthcare providers anticipate patient needs and resource requirements. This article examines the literature on the prediction of various discharge outcomes. Our review discovered papers that explore the use of prediction models to forecast the time, volume, and destination of discharged patients. Of the 101 reviewed papers, 49.5% looked at the prediction with machine learning tools, and 50.5% focused on prediction with statistical methods. The fact that knowing discharge outcomes in advance affects operational, tactical, medical, and administrative aspects is a frequent theme in the papers studied. Furthermore, conducting system-wide optimization, predicting the time and destination of patients after discharge, and addressing the primary causes of discharge delay in the process are among the recommendations for further research in this field.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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