MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1898118243 · doi:10.2147/ppa.s90425

Health state utility valuation in radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer

2015· article· en· W1898118243 on OpenAlexaff
Hayley de Freitas, Cicely Kerr, Beth Fordham, Andrew Lloyd, Karissa Johnston, Corey Pelletier, Gabriel Tremblay, Anna Forsythe, Bryan McIver, Ezra E.W. Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Preference and Adherence · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian Studies
FundersEisai
KeywordsMedicineThyroid cancerLogistic regressionDiseasePopulationPublic healthDescriptive statisticsValuation (finance)Adverse effectInternal medicineActuarial scienceOncologyEnvironmental healthThyroidPathologyAccountingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to elicit utilities for radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) and evaluate the impact of treatment response and toxicities on quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RR-DTC health states were developed based on data from a previous qualitative study and iterative review by clinical experts. Following piloting, health states underwent valuation by 100 members of the UK public during time trade-off interviews. Mean utilities and descriptive distribution statistics were calculated, and a logistic regression analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The demographic characteristics of the study sample were generally reflective of the UK population. Clear differentiation in valuation between health states was observed. No response/stable disease had an adjusted utility value of 0.87, with a corresponding gain of +0.04 following a treatment response and a decline of -0.35 for disease progression. Adverse events were associated with utility decrements between -0.47 (grade III diarrhea) and -0.05 (grade I/II alopecia). CONCLUSION: The trade-off interviews derived utility weights show clear differentiation between RR-DTC health states in response to treatment. The values reported in this study are suitable for cost-effectiveness evaluations for new treatments in RR-DTC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatient Preference and AdherenceSame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207