MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974946414 · doi:10.1136/bmj.39434.500185.25

Value based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed?

2008· article· en· W1974946414 on OpenAlexaff
Karl Claxton, Andrew Briggs, Martin Buxton, Anthony J. Culyer, Christopher McCabe, Simon Walker, Mark Sculpher

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)Key (lock)Value for moneyScheme (mathematics)EconomicsBusinessActuarial scienceMicroeconomicsPublic economicsComputer scienceMathematicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The policy debate about price, value, and innovation in pharmaceuticals is at a critical stage for the NHS. Claxton and colleagues describe the key principles of value based pricing and consider some of the concerns about such a scheme

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.186
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.186
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.020
Scholarly communication0.0180.045
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0270.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.623
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.141 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations232
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207