Vitamin B12 injections versus oral supplements. How much money could be saved by switching from injections to pills?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate savings, using a third-party payer perspective, if all elderly patients currently receiving vitamin B12 (cobalamin) injections were switched to high-dose oral therapy. DESIGN: We modeled high-dose oral B12 supplement costs to include drugs, pharmacists' fees, and one-time conversion costs consisting of two physician visits and laboratory monitoring. The number of vitamin-injection visits avoided by switching to oral therapy was predicted using a multivariate model that considered covariates for overall patient illness. SETTING: Ontario family physicians' and internists' practices. PARTICIPANTS: Population-based administrative databases for Ontario were used to identify all people between 65 and 100 years who received parenteral vitamin B12 during 1995 and 1996. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The cost of parenteral vitamin B12 for each patient, including drugs, injections, pharmacists' fees, and injection-associated physician visits, was measured directly from the databases. RESULTS: The annual cost of parenteral vitamin B12 therapy averaged $145.88 per person and totaled a maximum $25 million over 5 years. Converting all patients to high-dose oral B12 and treating them for 5 years would cost $7.4 million. Depending on how many vitamin-injection visits are avoided by switching to oral therapy, between $2.9 million and $17.6 million would be saved. Switching to oral B12 administration saved costs as long as 16.3% of injection-associated visits were avoided. CONCLUSION: Switching all patients from B12 injections to oral cobalamin therapy could result in substantial savings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".