Cost‐utility analysis comparing free and pedicled TRAM flap for breast reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the free TRAM to the unipedicled TRAM flap in postmastectomy reconstruction, using a cost-utility analysis. A decision analytic model was used for this study. Medical costs associated with the two techniques were estimated from the Ontario Ministry of Health Schedule of Benefits (1998). Hospital costs were obtained from St. Joseph's Healthcare, a university hospital in Hamilton, Ontario. Utilities were obtained from 33 "experts" across Canada and then converted into quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The probabilities of various health states associated with unipedicled and free TRAM flaps were obtained by reviewing several key articles. The free TRAM flap was more costly than the unipedicled TRAM flap, but it provided more QALYs. The baseline incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $5,113.73/QALY, favoring adoption of the free TRAM flap. This study showed that the free TRAM flap is a cost-effective procedure for postmastectomy reconstruction in the Canadian healthcare system.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".