Cost-minimization analysis comparing intravenous immunoglobulin with plasma exchange in the management of patients with myasthenia gravis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Myasthenia gravis (MG) exacerbations may be treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or plasma exchange (PLEX), which have equivalent effectiveness. This cost-minimization analysis compared IVIg with PLEX for treatment of patients with MG exacerbation. METHODS: We combined the Ontario-based health cost data with clinical data from a randomized clinical trial. Analyses were undertaken from the perspective of a public healthcare insurer and from the perspective of a tertiary university hospital payer. RESULTS: PLEX was less costly than IVIg among patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 15.7 kg/m(2) , from the perspective of the public healthcare insurer (P < 0.0001). However, PLEX was more costly than IVIg from the perspective of the hospital payer when the costs of blood products were excluded (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PLEX can be considered a short-term cost-minimizing therapy when compared with IVIg for treatment of MG exacerbation among patients with BMI >15.7 kg/m(2) , from the perspective of a public healthcare insurer. Muscle Nerve 53: 872-876, 2016.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".