MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The economic burden of prostate cancer

2011· review· en· W1504213150 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerWatchful waitingLife expectancyProstatectomyCancerEurosProstateGynecologyEnvironmental healthPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in men. Treatment is costly; the majority of men are treated with radiation or surgery, but even watchful waiting strategies are expensive. With increasing life expectancy more men are being diagnosed with prostate cancer, effectively increasing the economic burden of this disease. This study provides estimates of the cost of prostate cancer for different countries. These estimates could be used to populate models that explore economic costs of treating and preventing prostate cancer. Our review found considerable variation in costs across different countries, which may be due to differences in detection and management practices. In the present review we discuss expenditure on prostate cancer diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up and evaluate the cost of prostate cancer and its management in different countries. Prostate cancer costs were identified from published data and internet sources. To provide up‐to‐date comparisons, costs were inflated to 2010 levels and the most recent exchange rates were applied. A high proportion of the costs are incurred in the first year after diagnosis; in 2006, this amounted to 106.7–179.0 million euros (€) in the European countries where these data were available (UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands). In the USA, the total estimated expenditure on prostate cancer was 9.862 billion US dollars ($) in 2006. The mean annual costs per patient in the USA were $10 612 in the initial phase after diagnosis, $2134 for continuing care and $33 691 in the last year of life. In Canada, hospital and drug expenditure on prostate cancer totalled C$103.1 million in 1998. In Australia, annual costs for prostate cancer care in 1993–1994 were 101.1 million Australian dollars. Variations in costs between countries were attributed to differences in incidence and management practices. Per patient costs depend on cancer stage at diagnosis, survival and choice of treatment. Despite declining mortality rates, costs are expected to rise owing to increased diagnosis, diagnosis at an earlier stage and increased survival. Unless new strategies are devised to increase the efficiency of healthcare provision, the economic burden of prostate cancer will continue to rise.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it