MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P14 A preliminary cost analysis of management options for individuals with prior history of CMV disease

2000· article· en· W1996698360 on OpenAlexaff
A Miners, W. John Edmunds, Caroline Sabin, S Mandalia, M Youle, Deenan Pillay, EJ Beck, Behalf Of

Bibliographic record

VenueHIV Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and Retrovirus Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaintenance therapyViral loadCost–benefit analysisDiseaseIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicineImmunologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the potential costs of removing maintenance therapy for CMV in the era of HAART and to explore the possible impact on these costs of introducing a test based on CMV viral load. Methods: The analysis was performed using a Markov model, run over 24-month periods. Only the costs of the maintenance therapy, the hypothetical test and the costs of treating an episode of CMV were included. Results: The expected total cost of treating an individual with maintenance therapy with < 200 CD4 (cells/mm3) was £8025. When maintenance therapy was removed for individuals with between 100 and 199 and 50–199 CD4, the total treatment costs were £7580 and £8065 per person, respectively. When the hypothetical test was assumed to have a sensitivity and specificity of 0.9, a unit cost of £100 and was performed monthly for individuals with between CD4 50–199, the expected costs were £5604 per person. Conclusion: Testing for CMV viral load before removing maintenance therapy might be cost saving compared with removing maintenance therapy alone. However, further research is required to substantiate these findings.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHIV MedicineSame topicT-cell and Retrovirus StudiesFrench-language works237,207