MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047672685 · doi:10.1586/14737167.8.3.223

Gefitinib: a consideration of cost

2008· article· en· W2047672685 on OpenAlexaff
Anne M. Horgan, Ronald Feld, Natasha B. Leighl

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGefitinibLung cancerMedicineHealth careQuality of life (healthcare)OncologyCost effectivenessCancerIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEpidermal growth factor receptorEconomic growthRisk analysis (engineering)EconomicsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer care is one of the most significant healthcare costs in the USA. The National Institute of Health (NIH) estimates healthcare spending at US$171.6 billion (2002), with lung cancer estimated as the diagnosis with the second highest cost. As additional lines of therapy and newer targeted agents are incorporated into the treatment of lung cancer, these costs will further increase. Gefitinib, an EGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is well established in Asia for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Although not widely available in the West, encouraging data have recently been reported from a large, global Phase III study of gefitinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. This paper reviews the data supporting the use of gefitinib in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell-lung cancer and considers its potential economic impact, as well as quality-of-life outcomes, compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy.

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)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.493 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes ResearchSame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207