Assessment of Utilities and Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Chronic Liver Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Quantitative measures of the value patients place on the state of their health is crucial to understanding their experience, and to calculate quality-adjusted years of life for economic analyses. Patients' values in chronic liver disease remain unexplored, although experts' estimates of utilities have been examined. Our study tests the validity of a widely used utility measure in chronic liver disease and, if valid, establishes the decrement in health-related quality associated with chronic liver disease. METHODS: A total of 120 patients with chronic liver disease participated in the study (age 50 +/- 10 yr; men 53%; cirrhosis 51%, chronic viral hepatitis 51%, and chronic cholestatic liver disease 30%). All patients completed three instruments: Health Utility Index Mark 2 (scores 0-1), Short Form-36 (scale scores 0-100), and a disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument (Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire; scores 1-7). RESULTS: We found a moderate to strong correlation between scores on the three measures and that impairment worsened as the severity of disease worsened. Patients without cirrhosis and those with Child's A cirrhosis showed substantial decrement in utilities (0.82 and 0.83, respectively) in the range of patients surviving brain tumor. Those with Child's B and C showed a greater decrement (0.67 and 0.56) that was in the range experienced by patients who survive a stroke (0.67). Utilities assessed by Health Utility Index Mark 2 differed substantially from estimates by "expert." CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that utilities should be based on patient reports and that the data from this study can inform economic analyses in studies of patients with chronic liver disease.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".