MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971827711 · doi:10.1002/sim.789

Incremental net benefit in randomized clinical trials

2001· article· en· W1971827711 on OpenAlex
Andrew R. Willan, D. Y. Lin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)Computer scienceClinical trialStatisticsEconometricsRandomized controlled trialMedicineMathematicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are three approaches to health economic evaluation for comparing two therapies. These are (i) cost minimization, in which one assumes or observes no difference in effectiveness, (ii) incremental cost-effectiveness, and (iii) incremental net benefit. The latter can be expressed either in units of effectiveness or costs. When analysing data from a clinical trial, expressing incremental net benefit in units of cost allows the investigator to examine all three approaches in a single graph, complete with the corresponding statistical inferences. Furthermore, if costs and effectiveness are not censored, this can be achieved using common two-sample statistical procedures. The above will be illustrated using two examples, one with censoring and one without.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.252
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.147
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2520.147
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.581
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.006 · 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