Bibliometric Research on Surgical Scheduling Management from the Perspective of Web of Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ke Wang, Xuelu Wang, Chenying Xu, Lina Bai Operating Room, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Gynecologic Oncology, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, People’s Republic of ChinaCorrespondence: Xuelu Wang; Chenying Xu, Operating Room, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Gynecologic Oncology, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, 2699 West Gaoke Road, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China, 200092, Email wangxuelu@51mch.com; xuchenying@51mch.comObjective: Reasonable surgical scheduling management is crucial to optimize the utilization rate of operating room. This study aims to understand the context, frontier and hot spots of surgical scheduling management research, in order to provide reference for surgical scheduling optimization.Methods: Literature on operation scheduling management collected in Web of Science core collection database was searched from the database establishment to June 21, 2023. HisCite Pro 2.1 software was used to analyze the publication time, countries, research institutions, journals, authors, keywords and highly cited papers.Results: A total of 1383 literatures were included, and research institutions in the United States, Canada and other countries played a leading role in this field. Among them, the combination of machine algorithm and system model optimization to improve the accuracy of surgical duration prediction is the future research focus in this field.Conclusion: Improving operation efficiency is one of the key issues in operating room management. Managers should find the best operation scheduling plan from a more detailed and comprehensive perspective to improve operation efficiency.Keywords: surgery, schedule, manage
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 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 | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.070 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".