Net cost of palivizumab for respiratory syncytial virus prophylaxis during the 1998/99 season in northern Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Palivizumab has been shown to decrease respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) hospitalization rates in preterm infants and infants with chronic lung disease. The objective of the present study was to determine whether the use of palivizumab during the 1998/99 RSV season would have resulted in a cost-saving in infants discharged from Edmonton hospitals. DESIGN: A retrospective study of RSV hospitalizations was performed by contacting parents and reviewing hospital lists. The net cost of using palivizumab was determined by comparing the cost of giving the drug from November 1, 1998 to April 1, 1999 with the cost of potentially averted medical transports and hospitalizations. POPULATION: One hundred fifty-nine infants discharged from Edmonton hospitals who met the Canadian Paediatric Society's criteria for receiving palivizumab during the 1998/99 RSV season were studied. RESULTS: The cost of using palivizumab in these 159 study infants would have been $753,300. The infants had 21 RSV hospitalizations and required four medical transports. The estimated cost of RSV hospital-based care for these infants was $168,888. Assuming a drug efficacy of 39% in infants with chronic lung disease and 78% in infants born before 33 weeks' gestation with no chronic lung disease, $121,147 of these costs could have been averted if palivizumab had been used. CONCLUSIONS: The net cost to the health care system of using palivizumab, as recommended in the Canadian Paediatric Society guidelines, in study infants in northern Alberta during the 1998/99 RSV season would have been $632,153.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".