Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to perform a reference case (average case), cost-utility analysis of laser photocoagulation for extrafoveal choroidal neovascularization associated with age-related macular degeneration using a model incorporating patient preferences. METHODS: Visual acuity data for patients treated and observed over a 5-year period were obtained from previously reported studies by the Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. The results from this prospective, randomized trial were incorporated in a cost-utility model using time-trade-off utility analysis and decision analysis with Markov modeling according to the recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Expenditures and health care benefits were each discounted at a 3% yearly rate. RESULTS: Laser photocoagulation therapy for extrafoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration, compared with observation, resulted in a mean gain of 0.0740 quality-adjusted life-year per patient treated. The mean cost of treatment for the average patient totaled 1,715 US dollars. The cost divided by the health care benefit resulted in 23,176 year 2001 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained for this procedure for a reference case. Sensitivity analyses, varying the cost, utility values, and discount parameters, resulted in dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained ranging from 16,117 to 49,766 US dollars. CONCLUSION: Laser photocoagulation for extrafoveal choroidal neovascularization associated with age-related macular degeneration appears to be cost-effective when compared with interventions across multiple medical specialties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.507 | 0.358 |
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".