Cost‐utility analysis of bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: A health economic assessment from the perspective of a publicly funded program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine the cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) in deaf adults. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. METHODS: Ninety patients and 52 health professionals served as proxies to estimate the benefit of bilateral cochlear implantation, utilizing the Health Utility Index. Three scenarios were created to reflect 1) deafness without intervention, 2) unilateral CI, and 3) bilateral CI. Cost evaluation reflected the burden on a publicly funded healthcare system. The base case included 25 years of service provision, processor upgrades every 5 years, 50% price reduction for second side, and 15% failure rate. Discounting and sensitivity analyses were applied. RESULTS: Costs were $63,632 (unilateral CI), $111,764 (bilateral CI), and $48,132 (incremental cost of second CI). The health preference gained from no intervention to unilateral CI, and to bilateral CI were 0.270 and 0.305. Incremental utility gained by the second implant was 11.5% of total. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $14,658/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for bilateral CI compared to no intervention. It was stable regardless of discounting or sensitivity analyses. ICUR was $55,020/QALY from unilateral to bilateral CI with higher uncertainties. It improved with differential discounting, further second-side price reduction, and reduced frequency of processor upgrades. ICUR worsened with reduced length of use and higher failure rates. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential bilateral CI was cost-effective when compared to no intervention, although gains were made mostly by the first implant. Cost-effectiveness compared to unilateral implantation was borderline but improved through base case variations to reflect long-term gains or cost-saving measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2C.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".