Utility Scores for Facial Disfigurement Requiring Facial Transplantation [Outcomes Article]
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists as to whether the benefits of facial transplantation outweigh the risk of continuous immunosuppression. Utility scores [range, 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health)] are a standardized tool with which to objectify health states or diseases and can help answer such controversy. METHODS: An Internet-based utility assessment study using visual analogue scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble was used to obtain utilities for facial disfigurement requiring facial transplantation from a sample of the general population and medical students at McGill University. Average utility scores were compared using t test, and linear regression was performed using age, race, and education as independent predictors of each of the utility scores. RESULT: A total of 307 people participated in the study. All measures (visual analogue scale, time trade off, and standard gamble) for facial disfigurement (0.46 + or - 0.02, 0.68 + or - 0.03, and 0.66 + or - 0.03, respectively) were significantly different (p < 0.001) from the corresponding ones for monocular blindness (0.62 + or - 0.02, 0.83 + or - 0.02, and 0.82 + or - 0.02, respectively) and binocular blindness (0.33 + or - 0.02, 0.62 + or - 0.03, and 0.61 + or - 0.03, respectively). Age was inversely proportional to the utility scores in all groups (p < 0.01), decreasing a utility score of 0.006 for every increase in year of age. CONCLUSION: A sample of the general population and medical students, if faced with facial disfigurement, would undergo a face transplant procedure with a 34 percent chance of death and be willing to trade 12 years of their life to attain perfect health.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it