A systematic review of the use of contingent valuation in Alzheimer's disease research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review was conducted to examine the use of an economic evaluation strategy called `contingent valuation' in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Several scholarly and internet databases were searched for relevant citations. Articles were included in the review if they contained an original report of the use of contingent valuation in AD. Six articles — all of which assessed contingent valuation defined as willingness-to-pay (WTP) — met this criterion. Overall, caregivers' and patients' WTP for medications was higher when outcomes were better (e.g. cure versus stability). Cost-benefit analyses in two articles indicated that cholinesterase inhibitors, caregiver training, diagnostic testing, and publicly funded AD research would have net benefits for society. The articles were difficult to compare because of differences in methodology and setting. The articles also had a mix of methodological problems pertaining to study population, survey design, and elicitation of WTP. WTP is a useful means of conducting socioeconomic and policy research in AD, provided researchers are careful to address potential problems with comparability and methodology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".