In Reply We appreciate Dexter and Epstein for their interest in our article. Prior to developing the randomized clinical trial,1 we explored different modeling approaches and data inputs. We selected the random forest model because it provided the best results on a testing set.
We investigated the claim that a simple 2-parameter linear regression model would achieve the same outcome vis-à-vis reduced patient wait time. The proposed approach is applied on the training set used to derive the parameters; ideally, it would have been validated on a testing set that the model has not been trained on. It is not possible to estimate the direct effect on outcome metrics such as patient wait time, surgeon wait time, and use of preoperative surgical resources, which would require an actual implementation. Below are the questions posed by Dexter and Epstein, along with our corresponding answers.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Strömblad CT, Wilson RS. Simply Adjusting for Schedulers’ Bias in Estimated Case Durations Can Accomplish the Same Objectives of Improving Predictions as Use of Machine Learning—Reply. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(11):1075. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.3129
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.