The Cost of an Upper Gastroduodenal Endoscopy: An Activity-Based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cost of medical procedures is often unknown, but is nevertheless crucial for setting reimbursement and health care policies. The cost of an upper gastroduodenal endoscopy was investigated in ambulatory adults in a large academic hospital in the province of Quebec, from the perspective of the hospital. An activity-based costing methodology was used to break down the procedure into a number of priory tasks, to which resources used at the department level (labour, equipment, materials) were allocated. The direct cost of performing an endoscopy ranged from $62 for an unsedated, unbiopsied patient to $89 for a sedated, biopsied patient. Not included in this amount were separate reimbursement fees of $15 for biopsy analysis and the $50 professional fee for the performing physician, which are charged directly to the Ministry of Health. Incorporating overall, general hospital fixed overhead costs raises the cost of the procedure substantially, by $41, as does the use of nonreusable biopsy forceps, which adds about $63 to the total cost of the procedure. Given the high proportion of overall, hospital-wide, overhead costs in the total cost of the procedure, allocation methods of these overhead costs in current hospital accounting systems should be improved to obtain a more precise estimate of the full cost of upper gastroduodenal endoscopy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".