Cost Comparison of Psoriasis Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge of the cost of various psoriasis therapeutic options is essential to the prescribing clinician. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost of various psoriasis treatments over a 10-year period in the province of Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We used a hypothetical patient with plaque-type psoriasis of moderate severity with a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index of 10, body surface area of 20%, and no joint involvement. The costs to treat this hypothetical patient with different therapeutic regimens were compared in this study. RESULTS: In a 60 kg patient, alefacept was the most costly form of therapy, based on two 12-week treatments per year, followed by infliximab 5 mg/kg. In a 90 kg patient, infliximab 5 mg/kg was the most costly, followed by alefacept. The least costly treatment was ultraviolet B phototherapy. CONCLUSION: With the knowledge of these data, informed prescribing by the dermatologist may reduce the financial burden to the patient, the provincial health care system, and insurance companies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".