MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032397328 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605187

Societal preference values for advanced melanoma health states in the United Kingdom and Australia

2009· article· en· W2032397328 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen Beusterien, Shelagh M. Szabo, S. Kotapati, Jayanti Mukherjee, Axel Hoos, Peter Hersey, Mark R. Middleton, Adrian R. Levy

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsPreferenceMedicineUnintended consequencesEnvironmental healthPopulationHealth economicsMelanomaDemographyFamily medicinePublic economicsPublic healthPolitical scienceEconomicsPathologySociologyCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: No studies measure preference-based utilities in advanced melanoma that capture both intended clinical response and unintended toxicities associated with treatment. METHODS: Using standard gamble, utilities were elicited from 140 respondents in the United Kingdom and Australia for 13 health states. RESULTS: Preferences decreased with reduced treatment responsiveness and with increasing toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: These general population utilities can be incorporated into treatment-specific cost-effectiveness evaluations.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.424
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.055 · 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

Citations74
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207