Cost-effectiveness of Apligraf in the treatment of venous leg ulcers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Venous ulcers are the most common chronic wounds of the lower leg. Skin substitutes recently have been introduced to stimulate nonhealing wounds. To conduct an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, a model was developed to compare the four-layer bandage system, with and without one application of skin substitute, for the outpatient treatment of venous leg ulcers. The model estimated the costs and consequences of treatment with and without the skin substitute application. Two analytic horizons were explored: 3 months and 6 months. Determined by seven physicians, data and assumptions for the 3-month model were based on information from a clinical trial, published studies, and clinical experience. Data for the 6-month model were extrapolated from the shorter model. The model results indicate that over 3 months, the use of the skin substitute provided a benefit of 22 ulcer days averted per patient at an incremental cost of $304 (societal). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $14 per ulcer day averted. Over 6 months, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than $5 per ulcer-day averted. The skin substitute plus a four-layer bandage was more costly and more effective than the four-layer bandage alone. The skin substitute is increasingly cost-effective over a longer analytic horizon and in a subgroup of patients with ulcers of long duration (greater than 1-year duration at baseline). The results come from a model that is based on a series of estimates and assumptions, and accordingly, confirmation of this finding in a prospective study is encouraged.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".