Network Intervention and Staffing Need Different Health-System Evidence

Authors

  • Mason Bell Author
  • Derek Walsh Author
  • Zachary Wilson Author

Abstract

Network optimization models interaction-mediated interventions, while emergency staffing models patient flow and service capacity. Their shared computing methods do not provide interchangeable outcomes. Evaluation should preserve input calibration and independent checks within each mechanism. A favorable simulated recommendation is useful computational evidence without establishing an unobserved epidemiological or clinical consequence. This focused synthesis develops an empirical comparison that preserves the terminal action, observation process, and total verification cost. Its proposed tests are prospective; no new simulation run, model-training result, or intervention effect is reported.

References

  1. Q. Zhang, L. Zhong, S. Gao, and X. Li, “Optimizing HIV Interventions for Multiplex Social Networks via Partition-Based Random Search,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 3411–3419, 2018.
  2. H. Guo, S. Gao, K. L. Tsui, and T. Niu, “Simulation Optimization for Medical Staff Configuration at Emergency Department in Hong Kong,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1655–1665, 2017.
  3. Bertsimas, Dimitris, and Melvyn Sim. “The Price of Robustness.” Operations Research, vol. 52, no. 1, 2004, pp. 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1030.0065.
  4. Campi, Marco C., and Simone Garatti. “The Exact Feasibility of Randomized Solutions of Uncertain Convex Programs.” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 19, no. 3, 2008, pp. 1211–1230. https://doi.org/10.1137/07069821X.
  5. Glasserman, Paul. Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. Springer, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21617-1.
  6. Ankenman, Bruce, Barry L. Nelson, and Jeremy Staum. “Stochastic Kriging for Simulation Metamodeling.” Operations Research, vol. 58, no. 2, 2010, pp. 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1090.0754.
  7. Kim, Seong-Hee, and Barry L. Nelson. “A Fully Sequential Procedure for Indifference-Zone Selection in Simulation.” ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, vol. 11, no. 3, 2001, pp. 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1145/502109.502111.
  8. Chick, Stephen E., and Koichiro Inoue. “New Two-Stage and Sequential Procedures for Selecting the Best Simulated System.” Operations Research, vol. 49, no. 5, 2001, pp. 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.49.5.732.10615.
  9. Frazier, Peter I., Warren B. Powell, and Savas Dayanik. “A Knowledge-Gradient Policy for Sequential Information Collection.” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 47, no. 5, 2008, pp. 2410–2439. https://doi.org/10.1137/070693424.
  10. Rasmussen, Carl Edward, and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006. https://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/.

Downloads

Published

2025-10-21