Cost-effectiveness of a gestational age metabolic algorithm for preterm and small-for-gestational-age classification
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BackgroundPreterm birth complications are the leading cause of death among children under 5 years of age, and this imposes a heavy burden on healthcare and social systems, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where reliable estimates of gestational age may be difficult to obtain. Metabolic analyte data can aid in accurately estimating gestational age. However, important costs are associated with this approach, which are related to the collection and analysis of newborn samples, and its cost-effectiveness has yet to be determined.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an internationally validated gestational age estimation algorithm based on neonatal blood spot metabolite data in combination with clinical and demographic variables (birthweight, sex, and multiple birth status) compared with a basic algorithm that uses only clinical and demographic variables in classifying infants as preterm or term (using a 37-week dichotomous preterm or term classification) and determining gestational age.Study DesignThe cost per correctly classified preterm infant and per correctly classified small-for-gestational-age infant for the metabolic algorithm vs the basic algorithm were estimated with data from an implementation study in Bangladesh.ResultsOver 1 year, the metabolic algorithm correctly classified an average of 8.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.3–14.7) additional preterm infants and 145.3 (95% confidence interval, 128.0–164.7) additional small-for-gestational-age infants per 1323 infants screened compared with the basic algorithm using only clinical and demographic variables. The incremental annual cost of adopting the metabolic algorithm was $100,031 (95% confidence interval, $86,354–$115,725). If setup costs were included, the cost was $120,496 (95% confidence interval, $106,322–$136,656). Compared with the basic algorithm, the incremental cost per preterm infant correctly classified by the metabolic algorithm is $11,542 ($13,903 with setup), and the incremental cost per small-for-gestational-age infant is $688 ($829 with setup).ConclusionThis research quantifies the cost per detection of preterm or small-for-gestational-age infant in the implementation of a newborn screening program to aid in improved classification of preterm and, in particular, small-for-gestational-age infants in low- and middle-income countries. Preterm birth complications are the leading cause of death among children under 5 years of age, and this imposes a heavy burden on healthcare and social systems, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where reliable estimates of gestational age may be difficult to obtain. Metabolic analyte data can aid in accurately estimating gestational age. However, important costs are associated with this approach, which are related to the collection and analysis of newborn samples, and its cost-effectiveness has yet to be determined. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an internationally validated gestational age estimation algorithm based on neonatal blood spot metabolite data in combination with clinical and demographic variables (birthweight, sex, and multiple birth status) compared with a basic algorithm that uses only clinical and demographic variables in classifying infants as preterm or term (using a 37-week dichotomous preterm or term classification) and determining gestational age. The cost per correctly classified preterm infant and per correctly classified small-for-gestational-age infant for the metabolic algorithm vs the basic algorithm were estimated with data from an implementation study in Bangladesh. Over 1 year, the metabolic algorithm correctly classified an average of 8.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.3–14.7) additional preterm infants and 145.3 (95% confidence interval, 128.0–164.7) additional small-for-gestational-age infants per 1323 infants screened compared with the basic algorithm using only clinical and demographic variables. The incremental annual cost of adopting the metabolic algorithm was $100,031 (95% confidence interval, $86,354–$115,725). If setup costs were included, the cost was $120,496 (95% confidence interval, $106,322–$136,656). Compared with the basic algorithm, the incremental cost per preterm infant correctly classified by the metabolic algorithm is $11,542 ($13,903 with setup), and the incremental cost per small-for-gestational-age infant is $688 ($829 with setup). This research quantifies the cost per detection of preterm or small-for-gestational-age infant in the implementation of a newborn screening program to aid in improved classification of preterm and, in particular, small-for-gestational-age infants in low- and middle-income countries.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».