Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38183029›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Decision analysis framework for predicting no-shows to appointments using machine learning algorithms.

Carolina Deina, Flavio S Fogliatto, Giovani J C da Silveira, Michel J Anzanello

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Carolina DeinaDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99, 5° Andar, Porto Alegre, 90035-190, Brazil. caroldeina@gmail.com.
Flavio S FogliattoDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99, 5° Andar, Porto Alegre, 90035-190, Brazil.
Giovani J C da SilveiraHaskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Michel J AnzanelloDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99, 5° Andar, Porto Alegre, 90035-190, Brazil.
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul · BRUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNo-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.

methodsIn 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%.

resultsFrom 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.

conclusionThis 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.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBenchmarkingBrazilDecision Support TechniquesHumansMachine LearningClassification algorithmsHealthcare environmentsImbalanced datasetMachine learningMissed appointmentsResampling techniques

Identifiers

PMID38183029
PMCPMC10770919
OpenAlexW4390605457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.