MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Incorporating Economic Evaluations Into Decision-Making

2005· article· en· W2057822986 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andreas Laupacis

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Care · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)ReimbursementNegotiationListing (finance)Drug pricingBusinessQuality (philosophy)Actuarial sciencePolitical scienceFinanceHealth careLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee (DQTC) and the Canadian Expert Drug Assessment Committee (CEDAC) make reimbursement recommendations to publicly funded outpatient drug plans in Ontario and Canada respectively. In this article, the organization and decision-making processes of these committees are described. Issues associated with these committees such as potential biases associated with pharmaceutical company submissions, transparency, restricted access programs, conditional listing, and price negotiation are discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.011

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.298 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations30
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical CareSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207