The Costs of Colonoscopy in a Canadian Hospital using a Microcosting Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy has become accepted as one of the most effective methods of screening patients for colorectal cancer, and is used to remove the majority of colonic adenomas. OBJECTIVE: Because of the paucity of such estimates in the literature and the significant number of candidates for this procedure, the present study was performed to estimate the direct hospital costs of both diagnostic and therapeutic (polypectomy) colonoscopy. METHODS: A microcosting methodology was used to itemize the costs of colonoscopy. Variable and fixed costs were divided into labour, supplies, equipment and overhead costs. A third-party payer perspective was adopted. All costs are expressed in 2007 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: The cost of a diagnostic colonoscopy was $157 and the cost of a therapeutic colonoscopy was $199. Overhead costs represented approximately 30% of these amounts. When physician fees were added, these costs rose to $352 and $467, respectively. CONCLUSION: Because the overhead costs represent a large proportion of the total costs, allocation methods for these costs should be improved to allow for a more precise determination of the total costs of a colonoscopy. These estimates are useful when analyzing the cost-effectiveness of a strategy that uses colonoscopy when screening for colorectal cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".