Cost–utility analysis in evaluating prophylaxis in haemophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prophylaxis is an expensive form of management in haemophilia but has demonstrated many advantages with respect to decreasing joint bleeds and potentially preventing joint damage. The valuation of prophylaxis and how the costs and benefits of this intervention compare with other interventions in the management of haemophiliacs can be evaluated through cost-utility analysis (CUA). CUA is an economic method of analysis where the benefits of a healthcare intervention are expressed as an overall utility or preference, usually in the form of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). This is a composite measure, which takes into consideration both an individual's lifespan and quality of life (QoL). The most difficult aspect of performing a CUA is the measurement of health-related QoL (HRQoL). Much work is ongoing into evaluating HRQoL in haemophiliacs. This paper addresses some of the ways in which this can be achieved and some of the problems with evaluating HRQoL. Ultimately CUA may provide a tool to allow societies to decide if prophylaxis is worth the cost and how the costs and benefits of prophylaxis compare to other healthcare interventions for other disease entities.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".