Process mining is a data-driven approach that automatically discovers how healthcare processes actually work, rather than how we think they work¹. Unlike traditional methods that rely on interviews or observations, process mining analyzes digital footprints left in electronic health records (EHRs), hospital information systems, and other clinical databases to reveal real patient journeys through care.
Imagine being able to trace every step of every patient’s journey through your hospital — from admission to discharge — and then automatically creating a visual map showing all the different pathways patients take, where delays occur, and which treatments are most effective. This is exactly what process mining does².
| Type | What It Does | Clinical Example | Key Benefits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Process Discovery | Creates process maps from your data | Shows actual sepsis care pathways vs. protocols | Reveals hidden variations and bottlenecks |
| Conformance Checking | Compares reality vs. guidelines | Measures adherence to stroke care protocols | Identifies deviation patterns and compliance gaps |
| Process Enhancement | Predicts and optimizes processes | Forecasts patient deterioration risk | Enables proactive interventions and resource planning |
Process Mining Types — Visual Overview:
Historical Data → [Process Discovery] → "What actually happens?"
↓
Guidelines + Reality → [Conformance Checking] → "Are we following protocols?"
↓
Current Process + Predictions → [Process Enhancement] → "How can we improve?"
Modern healthcare generates enormous amounts of data — every medication administration, diagnostic test, consultation, and patient transfer is recorded digitally³. However, this wealth of information often remains trapped in separate systems, making it difficult to understand the complete patient experience.
Conventional approaches to understanding healthcare processes have significant limitations:
Process mining transforms your existing clinical data into actionable insights by revealing:
| Insight Category | What You Discover | Clinical Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Hidden Inefficiencies | Bottlenecks causing delays; Unnecessary duplicate steps; Resource constraints | Reduced patient wait times; Lower operational costs; Improved staff satisfaction |
| Practice Variations | Different approaches to similar cases; Pathway-outcome relationships; Guideline adherence patterns | Standardization opportunities; Best practice identification; Quality improvement targets |
| Real Patient Journeys | Complete care experiences; Department transitions; Time in different care states | Patient-centered improvements; Coordination optimization; Experience enhancement |
Traditional Analysis vs. Process Mining:
Traditional Approach: Process Mining Approach:
┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐
│ Manual Surveys │ │ Automated Data │
│ Small Samples │ vs. │ Complete Records│
│ Perceptions │ │ Actual Events │
│ Static View │ │ Dynamic Process │
└─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘
↓ ↓
Limited Insight Comprehensive Understanding
Process mining works by analyzing “event logs” — timestamped records of activities that occur during patient care. Every electronic health record system automatically generates these logs, capturing:
| Element | Example |
|---|---|
| Patient ID | Patient_12345 |
| Activity | Blood culture drawn |
| Timestamp | 2024-03-15 14:30:00 |
| Resource | Lab technician_A |
| Location | Emergency department |
The process mining analysis transforms these individual events into comprehensive process maps that show:
Event Log Transformation Process:
Raw Events: Process Map: Clinical Insights:
┌──────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐
│Patient_001 │ │ [Triage] │ │• Average wait time│
│Triage │ │ ↓ │ │• Bottleneck points│
│08:00 AM │ ──── → │ [Blood Work] │ ──── → │• Best pathways │
│ │ │ ↓ │ │• Outcome patterns │
│Patient_001 │ │ [Diagnosis] │ │• Resource needs │
│Blood Work │ │ ↓ │ │ │
│08:45 AM │ │ [Treatment] │ │ │
│... │ └─────────────────┘ └──────────────────┘
└──────────────┘
| Process Mining Output | Clinical Application | Decision Support |
|---|---|---|
| Process Flow Diagrams | Visual patient pathways | Identify optimal care routes |
| Performance Metrics | Time and resource analysis | Allocate staff efficiently |
| Variant Analysis | Common vs. rare pathways | Standardize frequent cases |
| Bottleneck Detection | Delay identification | Target improvement efforts |
Emergency departments are ideal settings for process mining due to their complex, time-sensitive processes and rich digital footprints⁴.
| ED Process Mining Applications | Key Findings | Impact Metrics |
|---|---|---|
| Patient Flow Analysis | Triage bottlenecks identified | 15-25% reduction in wait times |
| Laboratory Integration | Blood work delays discovered | 30% faster turnaround times |
| Discharge Processes | Complex procedures streamlined | 20% reduction in length of stay |
| Resource Allocation | Staffing patterns optimized | 18% improvement in efficiency |
Typical ED Patient Flow — Before vs. After Process Mining:
BEFORE (Traditional View):
Arrival → Triage → Waiting → Doctor → Tests → Results → Discharge
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
5 min 15 min 45 min 20 min 30 min 60 min 15 min
Total Time: 3h 10min
AFTER (Process Mining Optimized):
Arrival → Fast-Track Triage → Parallel Processing → Discharge
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
5 min 8 min ┌─ Doctor (15 min)
├─ Tests (20 min) → 10 min
└─ Results (25 min)
Total Time: 1h 23min (56% improvement)
Case Study: Sepsis Care A landmark study of 1,050 sepsis cases revealed that only 66-77% of patients followed the intended clinical pathway during their first cycle of treatment⁵.
| Sepsis Pathway Analysis | Finding | Clinical Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Adherence Rate | 66-77% follow protocol | 23-34% variation needs investigation |
| Critical Time Points | 6-12 hour intervention window | Early detection saves lives |
| Resource Correlation | Staffing patterns predict outcomes | Evidence for optimal staffing |
| Mortality Factors | Workflow variations increase risk | Process standardization critical |
Process mining applications in stroke care have demonstrated particular value in time-critical situations⁶. Analysis of stroke patient pathways revealed:
Time-to-Treatment Optimization
Quality Improvement
Process mining excels in analyzing chronic disease progression because it can track patients over extended periods⁷. The methodology bridges traditional epidemiological approaches with data-driven process analysis.
Chronic Disease Process Mining Framework:
Traditional Epidemiology: Process Mining Enhancement:
┌─────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ Exposure → Outcome │ │ Drug → Decline → KRT → Death │
│ │ + │ ↓ ↓ ↓ │
│ Single Events │ │ Time Analysis │ Risk │
│ Statistical Tests │ │ Pathways │ Factors │
└─────────────────────┘ │ Predictions │ │
└─────────────────────────────┘
Chronic Kidney Disease Example A recent study applied process mining to analyze kidney function progression in patients taking proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) versus H2 blockers⁸:
| Study Component | PPI Group | H2B Group | Risk Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient Count | 100,803 | 9,774 | — |
| 30% eGFR Decline | 9.02% | 3.37% | +168% |
| All-cause Mortality | 12.06% | 2.16% | +458% |
| Kidney Replacement Therapy | 0.16% | 0% | N/A |
| Risk Analysis | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) | Clinical Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Kidney Function Decline | 1.6 (1.4-1.8) | 60% increased risk with PPIs |
| Mortality Risk | 3.0 (2.1-4.4) | 3-fold higher death rate |
| Combined Endpoint | 1.8 (1.6-2.1) | Significant overall harm |
Medication Pathway Comparison:
PPI Pathway: H2B Pathway:
Drug Initiation Drug Initiation
↓ ↓
Higher Inflammation Lower Inflammation
↓ ↓
Kidney Damage (9.02%) Kidney Stability (3.37%)
↓ ↓
Higher Mortality (12.06%) Lower Mortality (2.16%)
Key Insight: Process mining revealed that medication choice
creates distinct disease progression pathways
Process mining in diabetes management has revealed:
Applications include:
Traditional clinical pathways are often designed based on idealized patient scenarios. Process mining reveals the reality of clinical practice⁹:
| Pathway Adherence Reality | Percentage | Clinical Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Exact Protocol Adherence | 5-30% | Most patients require individualization |
| Core Elements Adherence | 60-80% | High-performing pathways maintain essentials |
| Clinically Appropriate Deviations | 40-60% | Proper individualized care |
| Process Inefficiencies | 10-25% | Improvement opportunities |
Idealized vs. Reality — Breast Cancer Treatment:
IDEALIZED PATHWAY:
Diagnosis → Chemo Cycle 1 → Cycle 2 → ... → Cycle 6 → Recovery
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Expected Expected Expected Expected Planned
Timeline Timeline Timeline Timeline Outcome
ACTUAL PATHWAYS (474 variants discovered):
Patient Type A (5%): Diagnosis → C1 → C2 → C3 → C4 → C5 → C6 → Recovery
Patient Type B (15%): Diagnosis → C1 → [Hospital] → C2 → C3 → [Delay] → C4...
Patient Type C (25%): Diagnosis → C1 → C2 → [Toxicity] → Dose Adjustment → C3...
Patient Type D (31%): Diagnosis → C1 → [Emergency] → Recovery → C2...
...and 470 more variants
KEY INSIGHT: Only 5% followed the "standard" 6-cycle pathway without complications
A comprehensive study of breast cancer patients revealed significant insights¹⁰:
| Treatment Reality | Breast Cancer (535 patients) | Colorectal Cancer (420 patients) |
|---|---|---|
| Pathway Variants | 474 different pathways | 329 different pathways |
| Perfect Adherence | 27 patients (5%) | 26 patients (6%) |
| Hospital Admissions | 169 patients (31.6%) | 190 patients (45.2%) |
| Unplanned Contacts | 95% had deviations | 94% had deviations |
Cancer Treatment Process Map (Simplified):
Standard Expected:
[Diagnosis] → [Chemo 1] → [Chemo 2] → [Chemo 3] → [Chemo 4] → [Chemo 5] → [Chemo 6]
Reality Discovered:
┌ → [Emergency Admission] → [Recovery] ──┐
[Diagnosis] → [Chemo 1] ┼ → [Dose Reduction] → [Chemo 2] ──────┼ → [Chemo 3]
└ → [Toxicity Management] → [Delay] ────────┘
↓
┌ → [Hospital Stay] → [Chemo 4] ─────────┐
[Chemo 3] ──┼ → [Outpatient] → [Chemo 4] ────────────┼ → [Assessment]
└ → [Treatment Break] → [Restart] ────────┘
Process mining revealed: The "simple" pathway is actually highly complex
with multiple decision points and recovery loops.
Process mining applications in surgery include:
Process mining has proven particularly valuable in oncology due to the complexity and variability of cancer treatment pathways¹¹:
Treatment Compliance Monitoring
Toxicity Management
Long-term surveillance processes for cancer survivors benefit from process mining analysis¹²:
Process mining applications in surgical settings focus on:
Case Scheduling Optimization
Perioperative Workflow
Process mining helps identify:
Process mining applications in medication management include¹³:
Prescription to Administration Analysis
Adverse Drug Event Detection
Healthcare-associated infection prevention benefits from process mining through:
| Challenge Category | Specific Issues | Impact Level | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data Quality | Incomplete documentation; Missing timestamps; Inconsistent coding; Multi-system data | High | 80% of projects |
| Technical Complexity | Specialized software needs; IT integration requirements; Staff training demands | Medium | 60% of projects |
| Organizational Resistance | Workflow concerns; Monitoring anxiety; Unclear value proposition | High | 70% of projects |
| Resource Constraints | Time limitations; Budget restrictions; Competing priorities | Medium | 90% of projects |
Implementation Challenge Framework:
Technical Challenges Organizational Challenges Clinical Challenges
┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐
│• Data Quality │ │• Change Resistance │ │• Clinical Buy-in│
│• System Integration│ → │• Resource Allocation │ → │• Interpretation │
│• Software Tools │ │• Leadership Support │ │• Action Planning│
│• Training Needs │ │• Communication Issues │ │• Sustainability │
└─────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘
↓ ↓ ↓
Address First Manage Continuously Focus on Value
| Challenge | Solution Strategy | Implementation Steps | Success Factors |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data Quality | Iterative assessment and improvement | 1. Audit current data; 2. Identify gaps; 3. Implement fixes; 4. Validate improvements | Strong IT partnership |
| Technical Skills | Build internal capability | 1. Train core team; 2. Start with simple tools; 3. Gradual complexity; 4. External support initially | Dedicated resources |
| Resistance | Clinical leadership engagement | 1. Identify champions; 2. Show early wins; 3. Address concerns; 4. Celebrate successes | Transparent communication |
| Sustainability | Embedded processes | 1. Regular analysis cycles; 2. Automated reporting; 3. Continuous improvement; 4. Knowledge transfer | Executive support |
Successful Implementation Roadmap:
Phase 1: Foundation (Months 1-2)
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✓ Assess data quality │
│ ✓ Form core team │
│ ✓ Select initial process │
│ ✓ Secure leadership support │
└─────────────────────────────────┘
↓
Phase 2: Pilot (Months 3-4)
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✓ Extract and analyze data │
│ ✓ Generate initial insights │
│ ✓ Validate with clinicians │
│ ✓ Identify improvement opportunities│
└─────────────────────────────────┘
↓
Phase 3: Implementation (Months 5-8)
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✓ Pilot process changes │
│ ✓ Measure impact │
│ ✓ Refine based on feedback │
│ ✓ Scale successful changes │
└─────────────────────────────────┘
↓
Phase 4: Sustainability (Ongoing)
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✓ Regular monitoring cycles │
│ ✓ Continuous improvement │
│ ✓ Expand to other processes │
│ ✓ Build organizational capability│
└─────────────────────────────────┘
The combination of process mining with AI and machine learning opens new possibilities¹⁴:
Predictive Process Monitoring
Personalized Medicine Integration
Process mining is expanding beyond individual hospitals to:
Future developments include:
| Process Characteristics | Good Candidates ✅ | Poor Candidates ❌ |
|---|---|---|
| Volume | High-volume (>100 cases/month) | Low-volume (<20 cases/month) |
| Standardization | Standardized protocols exist | Highly individualized care |
| Digital Documentation | Well-documented electronically | Primarily paper-based |
| Clinical Leadership | Champion identified | No clinical interest |
| Improvement Potential | Known quality/efficiency issues | Already optimized processes |
| Complexity | Moderate complexity | Extremely simple or complex |
Process Selection Matrix:
High Volume + High Digital Documentation = IDEAL
↑ ↑
│ │
│ GOOD CHOICE │
│ ┌──────────┴──────────┐
│ │ │
│ │ • Emergency Dept │
│ │ • Surgery Scheduling│
│ │ • Medication Admin │
│ │ • Discharge Process │
│ │ │
│ └─────────────────────┘
│
Low Volume + Poor Documentation = AVOID
Excellent Starting Points:
| Process Type | Why It Works | Expected Benefits |
|---|---|---|
| Emergency Department | High volume, time-sensitive, well-documented | 15-25% wait time reduction |
| Surgical Scheduling | Standardized protocols, resource-intensive | 20-30% efficiency gain |
| Medication Administration | Safety-critical, frequent activities | 30-50% error reduction |
| Discharge Process | Cross-departmental, improvement opportunities | 10-20% length of stay reduction |
| Data Element | Essential ✓ | Nice to Have ○ | Assessment Questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient ID | ✓ | Can you link events to specific patients? | |
| Activity Names | ✓ | Are activities standardized and meaningful? | |
| Timestamps | ✓ | Are all events time-stamped accurately? | |
| Outcomes | ✓ | Can you measure process success? | |
| Resources | ○ | Who performed each activity? | |
| Locations | ○ | Where did activities occur? | |
| Clinical Data | ○ | Lab values, vital signs, diagnoses? |
Data Quality Assessment Framework:
Step 1: Data Inventory Step 2: Quality Check Step 3: Gap Analysis
┌─────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────┐
│ □ Patient IDs │ │ Completeness: ___% │ │ Critical Gaps: │
│ □ Activity codes │ → │ Consistency: ___% │ → │ □ Missing timestamps│
│ □ Timestamps │ │ Accuracy: _____% │ │ □ Inconsistent codes│
│ □ Outcomes │ │ Linkability: ___% │ │ □ Data silos │
│ □ Resources │ │ │ │ □ Access issues │
└─────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────┘
↓ ↓ ↓
What do we have? How good is it? What needs fixing?
| Role | Responsibilities | Time Commitment | Key Qualifications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical Champion | Process expertise; Staff engagement; Results interpretation | 25% for 6 months | Respected clinician; Change leadership; Quality improvement experience |
| Data Analyst | Technical analysis; Tool operation; Visualization creation | 50% for 6 months | Process mining experience; Healthcare data knowledge; Statistical skills |
| IT Representative | Data extraction; System integration; Technical support | 15% for 6 months | Database expertise; Healthcare systems knowledge; Security awareness |
| QI Leader | Project management; Change facilitation; Implementation planning | 30% for 6 months | Quality improvement experience; Change management; Healthcare operations |
Team Structure and Communication Flow:
Executive Sponsor
│
Project Steering Committee
│
┌──────────────┼──────────────┐
│ │ │
Clinical Champion QI Leader IT Representative
│ │ │
└──────┬───────┼───────┬──────┘
│ │ │
Data Analyst │ Frontline Staff
│
Patient Representatives
Meeting Cadence:
• Weekly core team meetings (1 hour)
• Bi-weekly stakeholder updates (30 minutes)
• Monthly steering committee reports (1 hour)
| Metric Category | Examples | Measurement Method | Target Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time-Based | Cycle time; Wait times; Time to treatment | Event log analysis | 15-30% reduction |
| Quality | Guideline adherence; Complication rates; Readmissions | Clinical indicators | 10-25% improvement |
| Efficiency | Resource utilization; Throughput; Cost per case | Operational metrics | 20-40% optimization |
| Patient Experience | Satisfaction scores; Communication quality; Care coordination | Patient surveys | 15-25% increase |
Measurement Framework — Balanced Scorecard Approach:
Clinical Outcomes Process Efficiency
┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐
│• Mortality │ │• Cycle time │
│• Complications │ │• Throughput │
│• Readmissions │ │• Utilization │
│• Quality scores │ │• Wait times │
└─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘
│ │
└────────┬─────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────┐
│ Patient │
│ Experience │
│• Satisfaction │
│• Communication │
│• Care quality │
└─────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────┐
│ Financial │
│ Impact │
│• Cost per case │
│• Resource costs │
│• Revenue cycle │
└─────────────────┘
Target: 15-25% improvement across all quadrants
Initial Scope:
Early Activities:
Clinical Validation:
Change Management:
Continuous Monitoring:
Scaling Decisions:
Process mining represents a fundamental shift in how we understand and improve healthcare delivery. By leveraging the wealth of data already captured in our clinical information systems, we can move beyond assumptions and anecdotes to evidence-based process improvement.
| Traditional Approach | Process Mining Approach | Clinical Advantage |
|---|---|---|
| Limited View | Complete Picture | See entire patient journey |
| Assumptions | Data-Driven Facts | Evidence-based decisions |
| Reactive | Predictive | Prevent problems before they occur |
| Anecdotal | Systematic | Measurable improvement |
| Siloed | Integrated | Cross-departmental insights |
Process Mining Impact Across Healthcare:
Emergency Care Chronic Disease Cancer Treatment
┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐
│ 22% LOS reduction│ │ 60% risk increase│ │ 474 pathway │
│ 15-25% wait time │ → │ identified (PPIs)│ → │ variants found │
│ 18% efficiency │ │ 3x mortality risk│ │ 95% had │
│ improvement │ │ discovered │ │ deviations │
└─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘
↓ ↓ ↓
Process optimization Risk identification Pathway realism
Combined Clinical Value:
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ • Improved patient outcomes │
│ • Reduced costs and waste │
│ • Enhanced care coordination │
│ • Evidence-based protocols │
│ • Predictive capabilities │
└─────────────────────────────────┘
| Success Factor | Critical Elements | Measurement Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical Leadership | Champion engagement; Frontline involvement; Change readiness | Stakeholder surveys; Participation rates; Feedback sessions |
| Data Quality | Complete event logs; Accurate timestamps; Consistent coding | Completeness metrics; Accuracy assessments; Quality scores |
| Technical Capability | Skilled analysts; Appropriate tools; IT integration | Analysis quality; Tool effectiveness; System integration |
| Organizational Support | Executive backing; Resource allocation; Culture alignment | Budget approval; Time allocation; Cultural surveys |
The technology is mature, the data exists in most healthcare organizations, and the potential for improving patient outcomes is substantial. The question is not whether process mining will transform healthcare, but how quickly we can harness its power to benefit our patients.
Evolution of Healthcare Process Mining:
Current State (2024) Near Future (2025-2027) Long-term Vision (2028+)
┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐
│• Descriptive │ │• Predictive │ │• Prescriptive │
│• Reactive │ → │• Real-time │ → │• Autonomous │
│• Single process │ │• Multi-process │ │• AI-integrated │
│• Manual analysis│ │• Automated │ │• Self-learning │
└─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘
↓ ↓ ↓
"What happened?" "What will happen?" "What should happen?"
As we move toward more data-driven healthcare, clinicians who understand and embrace process mining will be better positioned to lead quality improvement efforts, optimize patient care, and demonstrate the value of their clinical expertise. The future of healthcare improvement lies not in replacing clinical judgment with algorithms, but in augmenting clinical expertise with data-driven insights — and process mining is one of the most powerful tools available for this purpose.
| Takeaway | Action Item | Expected Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Start Small | Choose one high-impact process | Quick wins build momentum |
| Engage Early | Partner with analysts and IT | Clinically relevant insights |
| Focus on Value | Target patient-centered improvements | Meaningful care enhancement |
| Build Capability | Develop internal expertise | Sustainable improvement |
| Share Success | Communicate results widely | Organizational transformation |
The journey begins with a single step — identifying one process that matters to your patients and your practice, and discovering what your data has been trying to tell you all along.
Rojas, E., Munoz-Gama, J., Sepúlveda, M., & Capurro, D. (2016). Process mining in healthcare: A literature review. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 61, 224-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2016.04.007
De Roock, E., & Martin, N. (2022). Process mining in healthcare — An updated perspective on the state of the art. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 127, 103995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2022.103995
Aversano, L., Iammarino, M., Madau, A., Pirlo, G., & Semeraro, G. (2025). Process mining applications in healthcare: a systematic literature review. PeerJ Computer Science, 11, e2613. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.2613
Williams, R., Rojas, E., Peek, N., & Johnson, O. A. (2018). Process mining in primary care: A literature review. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 247, 376-380.
Chen, K., Abtahi, F., Carrero, J. J., Fernandez-Llatas, C., & Seoane, F. (2024). Validation of an interactive process mining methodology for clinical epidemiology through a cohort study on chronic kidney disease progression. Scientific Reports, 14, 27997. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79704-5
Mans, R., Schonenberg, H., Leonardi, G., Panzarasa, S., Cavallini, A., Quaglini, S., & van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2008). Process mining techniques: an application to stroke care. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 136, 573-578.
Hendricks, G. (2019). Process mining of incoming patients with sepsis. Conference Proceedings — IEEE SOUTHEASTCON, 2019.
Chen, K., Abtahi, F., Carrero, J. J., Fernandez-Llatas, C., & Seoane, F. (2024). Validation of an interactive process mining methodology for clinical epidemiology through a cohort study on chronic kidney disease progression. Scientific Reports, 14, 27997. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79704-5
Yang, W., & Su, Q. (2014). Process mining for clinical pathway: Literature review and future directions. 11th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management (ICSSSM), 1-5.
Baker, K., Dunwoodie, E., Jones, R. G., Newsham, A., Johnson, O., Price, C. P., Wolstenholme, J., Leal, J., McGinley, P., Twelves, C., & Hall, G. (2017). Process mining routinely collected electronic health records to define real-life clinical pathways during chemotherapy. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 103, 32-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.03.011
Wicky, A., Gatta, R., Latifyan, S., Micheli, R., Gerard, C., Pradervand, S., Michielin, O., & Cuendet, M. A. (2023). Interactive process mining of cancer treatment sequences with melanoma real-world data. Frontiers in Oncology, 13, 1043683. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1043683
Rinner, C., Helm, E., Dunkl, R., Kittler, H., & Rinderle-Ma, S. (2018). Process mining and conformance checking of long running processes in the context of melanoma surveillance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12), 2809. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122809
Fernandez-Llatas, C. (Ed.). (2021). Interactive Process Mining in Healthcare. Springer International Publishing.
Tavazzi, E., Daberdaku, S., Vasta, R., Calvo, A., Mora, G., & Rizzo, G. (2023). Leveraging process mining for modeling progression trajectories in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 22, 346. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-023-02113-7