The cost-effectiveness of grid laser photocoagulation for the treatment of diabetic macular edema: results of a patient-based cost-utility analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grid laser therapy has been demonstrated to be of benefit for the treatment of diabetic macular edema. The purpose of the present study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of grid laser therapy for the treatment of diabetic macular edema. The analysis was performed from the perspective of a third-party insurer. Decision analyses and cost-effectiveness analyses were performed by incorporating the data from the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study, expected longevity data, and patient-based utilities. Various sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of the models. Laser treatment conferred an overall improvement in quality-of-life adjusted years of approximately 3 months over the duration of disease for a hypothetical patient. The unadjusted cost per quality-of-life adjusted year (QALY) was US$3,101. Net present value analysis demonstrated that the cost per QALY could increase to $3,655, assuming a 5% discount rate. Overall, grid laser photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema is a very cost-effective treatment based on the results of this cost-utility analysis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".