26. “The cost of facing life”: Systematic Review and AI assisted econometric analysis of the Global Price Tag of Facial Transplantation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Since the first facial transplant in 2005, more than 50 successful procedures have been performed in 10 countries. The costs and the diversity of economic profiles of the countries performing this procedure are a question mark. Differences in the economic potentials of each country involved may be the key to cost variability, which are measured by specific econometric measures (EM), such as gross domestic product (GDP), current health expenditure (CHE) and health expenditure per capita (CHPC). This work has the general objective to determine, compare and analyze the global cost of face transplantation Methodology: Longitudinal descriptive retrospective study analyzing the costs of facial transplantation worldwide. A systematic review of articles from 2005 onward was conducted using PUBMED, GOOGLE SCHOLAR, and COCHRANE, with keywords like “face transplant,” “facial transplantation,” “cost,” and “analysis.” Inclusion criteria required data on the country of origin, procedure cost, and publication details, excluding duplicates or articles without detailed cost analysis. Using artificial intelligence (AI) (OpenEvidence App), the most common procedures for complex facial reconstruction were identified and their costs analyzed globally. Values were converted to USD and averaged, then compared with GDP and CHPC using data from the World Bank. The cost analysis used a formula comparing the procedures costs to EM. Results: Out of 26,955 articles, a total of 3,178 articles were found adding “analysis” and only 98 by using the word “cost”. Ending with 7 articles and costs reported from: United States, Canada, France, China and Finland. With an average cost of $293,083 and the highest price being in Finland with $406,559 and the lowest China with $80,000 AI identified the most used procedure for complex facial reconstruction as free and axial flaps (FF), with a reported cost of $56,205 for the United States, $35,708.50 for Europe and $9,265 for China. CHPC data showed significant variance; (United States) $12,473.79 (Highest). (Canada) $6207.18. (Spain), $3,234.29 (Finland) $5,488.00. (China), $670.51. (France), $5,380.88. FT The ratios of CHPC to FF and CHPC to FT are shown in the attached image. The highest ratio for FF was China (13.81) and the lowest was the United States (4.5); for FT, the highest reported ratio was China (119.31) and the lowest was the United States (25.09). Conclusion: The real value of face transplantation goes beyond the economic, when analyzing the CHPC/FF and CHPC/FT, it suggests that the highest monetary value recorded is not the most expensive, since it is determined by the economic effort of each country. In conclusion, face transplantation does not require great economic potential, but a great willingness to invest in it.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,082 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,011 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,024 | 0,019 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».