Can the Standard Gamble Be Used to Determine Utilities for Uncertain Health States?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine whether patients with Crohn's disease (CD) value the absolute reduction in postoperative recurrence risk attributable to therapy with mesalamine (5-ASA). One hundred subjects evaluated state A (taking 5-ASA; 25% risk of recurrence), state B (not taking 5-ASA; 40% risk of recurrence), and state C (100% risk of recurrence) by rank order, visual analog scale (VAS), and standard gamble (SG). Sixty-five of 91 patients (71%) with completed and usable questionnaires had the same preference order for state A (25% risk), state B (40% risk), and state C (100% risk) on both the VAS and the SG. The mean scores for state A (25% risk), state B (40% risk), and state C (100% risk), respectively, were 67.5, 49.8, and 19.8 on the VAS and 0.977, 0.972, and 0.910 on the SG. Subgroup analyses using stepwise logistic regression showed that risk attitude seemed to be predictive of subjects' preferences for 5-ASA. These results suggest that most subjects seem to value the 15% absolute risk reduction offered by 5-ASA. Furthermore, the SG seems to be a feasible method for measuring utilities for uncertain health states in patients with CD.
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 | 0.026 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".