Decision analysis framework for predicting no-shows to appointments using machine learning algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background No-show to medical appointments has significant adverse effects on healthcare systems and their clients. Using machine learning to predict no-shows allows managers to implement strategies such as overbooking and reminders targeting patients most likely to miss appointments, optimizing the use of resources. Methods In this study, we proposed a detailed analytical framework for predicting no-shows while addressing imbalanced datasets. The framework includes a novel use of z-fold cross-validation performed twice during the modeling process to improve model robustness and generalization. We also introduce Symbolic Regression (SR) as a classification algorithm and Instance Hardness Threshold (IHT) as a resampling technique and compared their performance with that of other classification algorithms, such as K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) and Support Vector Machine (SVM), and resampling techniques, such as Random under Sampling (RUS), Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) and NearMiss-1. We validated the framework using two attendance datasets from Brazilian hospitals with no-show rates of 6.65% and 19.03%. Results From the academic perspective, our study is the first to propose using SR and IHT to predict the no-show of patients. Our findings indicate that SR and IHT presented superior performances compared to other techniques, particularly IHT, which excelled when combined with all classification algorithms and led to low variability in performance metrics results. Our results also outperformed sensitivity outcomes reported in the literature, with values above 0.94 for both datasets. Conclusion This is the first study to use SR and IHT methods to predict patient no-shows and the first to propose performing z-fold cross-validation twice. Our study highlights the importance of avoiding relying on few validation runs for imbalanced datasets as it may lead to biased results and inadequate analysis of the generalization and stability of the models obtained during the training stage.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".