Economic evaluation of treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster (BFM) and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) consortia's treatment strategies for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) in children are widely used. We compared the health effects and monetary costs of hospital treatments for these two strategies. Parents of children treated at seven centres in Canada, Italy and the USA completed health-related quality of life (HRQL) assessments during four active treatment phases and at 2 years after treatment. Mean HRQL scores were used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for a period of 5 years following diagnosis. Total costs of treatment were determined from variables in administrative databases in a universally accessible and publicly funded healthcare system. Valid HRQL assessments (n = 1200) were collected for 307 BFM and 317 DFCI patients, with costs measured for 66 BFM and 28 DFCI patients. QALYs per patient were <1.0% greater for BFM than DFCI. Median HRQL scores revealed no difference in QALYs. The difference in mean total costs for BFM (US$88 480) and DFCI (US$93 026) was not significant (P = 0.600). This study provides no evidence of superiority for one treatment strategy over the other. Current BFM or DFCI strategies should represent conventional management for the next economic evaluation of treatments for ALL in childhood.
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 | 0.017 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".