MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The cost‐effectiveness of pathogen reduction technology as assessed using a multiple risk reduction model

2010· article· en· W1563713995 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

VenueTransfusion · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunologyHepatitis B virusChikungunyaSyphilisIntensive care medicineBlood transfusionPsychological interventionHepatitis C virusCost effectivenessAdverse effectVirusInternal medicineVirologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Risk analysis (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pathogen reduction technology (PRT) for labile blood components has the potential to reduce the risk of many adverse events associated with transfusion. Because of the potential broad-spectrum risk reduction capability of PRT, the health economics of PRT could be an important consideration in decision making for this technology. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Decision analytic models comparing current blood safety screens and interventions to riboflavin-based whole blood PRT (currently in development) and separately to platelets (PLTs)-and-plasma PRT from the health care system perspective in Canada were used to assess the cost-utility of PRT in reducing the following adverse events: human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, human T-lymphotropic virus, syphilis, West Nile virus, bacteria, Chikungunya virus, cytomegalovirus, Trypanosoma cruzi, graft-versus-host disease, febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions, and transfusion-related immunomodulation. PRT was modeled as an addition to rather than a replacement for current interventions. The potential of PRT to reduce the risk of an unknown pathogen was not assessed. RESULTS: Whole blood PRT was estimated to have a cost-effectiveness of $1,276,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY; 95% confidence interval [CI] approximation, 600,000-3,313,000) compared to current screens and interventions. PLTs-and-plasma PRT was estimated to have a cost-effectiveness of $1,423,000/QALY (95% CI approximation, 834,000-2,818,000) on an all-transfusions basis. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the complexity of transfusion risks and practices, the cost-effectiveness of whole blood or PLTs-and-plasma PRT can be modeled provided that assumptions and simplifications are made. Uncertainty remains with respect to the risk reduction that can be achieved for some adverse events. Nevertheless, the results of this cost-effectiveness analysis can be used to inform policy decisions regarding PRT technology in the context of other initiatives designed to improve transfusion safety.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.310 · 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