Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 17, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
One hospital runs bloods and imaging at the same time. Another runs them one after the other, in either order, equally often. Knowing which actually happened, and how it is recorded in data, is critical for all operational managers. In process mining, the standard approach is to construct an event log, and attempt to discover concurrent and sequential processes in a data-driven way. We show this standard approach, built on the stochastic language of an event log, reports only the assumptions of its discovery algorithm, because every such log is explained equally well by a model with no concurrency at all. Further, before any data is acquired, we characterise when data can and cannot distinguish concurrent behaviour. Where it cannot, the distinction is recoverable from evidence the stochastic language discards, such as the times at which activities start and end, or object-centric records that fix an order within an execution. The remedy is therefore a choice of what is recorded, rather than a larger sample. This impacts decision making, as planning resource for truly concurrent services is very different from sequential services.