DOI: 10.3390/healthcare14213731 ISSN: 2227-9032

From No-Show Prediction to Operational Action: A Retrospective Secondary Analysis of Calibrated, Duration-Weighted Dental Appointment Prioritization

Ștefan Lucian Burlea, Călin Gheorghe Buzea, Florin Nedeff, Diana Mirilă, Valentin Nedeff, Maricel Agop, Irina Nica, Giani Gabriel Condurache

Background/Objectives: Patient non-attendance disrupts dental scheduling and may leave reserved appointment time unused when missed slots cannot be reassigned. Most no-show prediction studies focus on discrimination or the number of missed appointments identified, without considering appointment duration, probability calibration, temporal robustness, or limited intervention capacity. This study developed and evaluated a calibrated, duration-weighted framework for operational prioritization of dental appointments. Methods: A retrospective secondary analysis was conducted using 196,018 appointments recorded in 2019 at a dental clinic in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. L2-regularized logistic regression was used as the primary model, with CatBoost as a secondary nonlinear comparator. Model development, probability calibration, and testing were performed in separate chronological periods. Performance was assessed using ROC-AUC, average precision, Brier score, calibration measures, rolling-origin temporal validation, dentist-level transportability analysis, and sensitivity analyses. Four prioritization strategies were compared at intervention budgets from 5% to 30%: random, probability-only, duration-only, and calibrated probability multiplied by scheduled duration. Results: In the independent November–December test set, the calibrated logistic model achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.6886 (95% CI: 0.6827–0.6941), average precision of 0.6087, and Brier score of 0.2238. At the prespecified 10% intervention budget, probability-only targeting captured 15.88% of scheduled no-show minutes, duration-only targeting captured 18.49%, and duration-weighted targeting captured 23.04%. Duration-weighted targeting exceeded probability-only targeting by 7.16 percentage points (95% CI: 6.47–7.79) and duration-only targeting by 4.54 percentage points (95% CI: 4.00–5.39). The advantage persisted across rolling-origin validation and sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Combining calibrated no-show probability with scheduled appointment duration identified more scheduled time associated with non-attendance than either probability or duration alone under the same intervention budget. The framework demonstrated a retrospective ranking advantage for identifying scheduled minutes associated with non-attendance but did not establish recoverable clinical capacity, reductions in missed appointments, or improvements in clinical efficiency. Independent external validation and prospective intervention studies are required before routine clinical implementation.

More from our Archive