Health Care Costs for State Transition Models in Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To obtain estimates of direct health care costs for prostate cancer (PC) from diagnosis to death to inform state transition models. METHODS: A stratified random sample of PC patients residing in 3 geographically diverse regions of Ontario, Canada, and diagnosed in 1993-1994, 1997-1998, and 2001-2002, was selected from the Ontario Cancer Registry. We retrieved patients' pathology reports to identify referring physicians and contacted surviving patients and next of kin of deceased patients for informed consent. We reviewed clinic charts to obtain data required to allocate each patient's observation time to 11 PC-specific health states. We linked these data to health care administrative databases to calculate resource use and costs (Canadian dollars, 2008) per health state. A multivariable mixed-effects model determined predictors of costs. RESULTS: The final sample numbered 829 patients. In the regression model, total direct costs increased with age, comorbidity, and Gleason score (all P < 0.0001). Radical prostatectomy was the most costly primary treatment health state ($4676 per 100 days). Radical prostatectomy, hormone-refractory metastatic disease ($6398 per 100 days), and final (predeath) ($13,739 per 100 days) health states were significantly more costly (P < 0.05) than nontreated nonmetastatic PC ($3440 per 100 days), whereas the postprostatectomy ($732 per 100 days) and postradiation ($1556 per 100 days) states cost significantly less (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study used an innovative but labor-intensive approach linking chart and administrative data to estimate health care costs. Researchers should weigh the potential benefits of this method against what is involved in implementation. Modifications in methodology may achieve similar gains with less outlay in individual studies. However, we believe that this is a promising approach for researchers wishing to advance the quality of costing in state transition modeling.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".