MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063243106 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001063

Is Scale-Up Worth It? Challenges in Economic Analysis of Diagnostic Tests for Tuberculosis

2011· article· en· W2063243106 on OpenAlexafffund
David W. Dowdy, Adithya Cattamanchi, Karen R Steingart, Madhukar Pai

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsGeneXpert MTB/RIFTuberculosisActivity-based costingDiagnostic testScale (ratio)Health economicsSample (material)Tuberculosis diagnosisData scienceMedicineOperations researchRisk analysis (engineering)Computer sciencePublic healthMycobacterium tuberculosisBusinessGeographyEngineeringPathologyMarketingPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2007, the World Health Organization (WHO) has approved an unprecedented number of new diagnostic tests for tuberculosis (TB) Most recently, Xpert MTB/RIF (Cepheid, Inc.; Sunnyvale, CA), an automated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test with high accuracy in validation studies (72%-77% sensitivity for smear-negative TB, 99% specificity) To impact TB globally, Xpert MTB/RIF and other diagnostics must be scaled-up across numerous clinical settings, after careful evaluation of expected costs and benefits. Unfortunately, standard cost-effectiveness analyses are ill-suited to guide local decision-makers in directing scale-up activities. We demonstrate the limitations of standard economic analyses as applied to scale-up of TB diagnostics (specifically Xpert MTB/RIF), and recommend adaptations to future analyses that will facilitate rational and effective scale-up activities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations66
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207