MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1539397973 · doi:10.1002/hec.1415

A SECOND LOOK AT PHARMACEUTICAL SPENDING AS DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH OUTCOMES IN CANADA

2008· letter· en· W1539397973 on OpenAlexaffabout
G. Emmanuel Guindon, Paul Contoyannis

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Economics · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth spendingLife expectancySpurious relationshipPer capitaEconometricsRobustness (evolution)Contrast (vision)EconomicsPublic healthPublic economicsHealth economicsRegression analysisUnit (ring theory)Actuarial scienceDemographic economicsMedicineEnvironmental healthStatisticsHealth careEconomic growthPsychologyMathematicsPopulationHealth insurance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Per capita spending on pharmaceutical products has increased substantially in recent decades in Canada. Recent Canadian research by Crémieux et al. concludes that there is a strong statistical relationship between pharmaceutical spending and health outcomes (Health Econ. 2005a; 14: 117, Health Econ. 2005b; 14(2): 107-116). This paper takes a second look at pharmaceutical spending as determinants of health outcomes in Canada. In doing so, it examines the robustness of the findings of Crémieux et al. by considering the appropriateness of the data used and statistical approach utilized. Particular attention is given to the potential for non-stationarity and spurious regression, issues related to unit heterogeneity and the choice of estimators. In contrast with earlier findings, on the whole, no discernable relationship between spending on private or public pharmaceutical products and infant mortality or life expectancy at 65 is observed.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth EconomicsSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207