Cost Analysis of Continuous Intrathecal Baclofen versus Selective Functional Posterior Rhizotomy in the Treatment of Spastic Quadriplegia Associated with Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to analyze the relative cost of selective functional posterior rhizotomy (SFPR) and continuous intrathecal baclofen in the treatment of children with severe spastic quadriplegia related to cerebral palsy. No attempt was made to analyze the efficacy of the two types of treatment. Nine children with spastic quadriplegia secondary to cerebral palsy in whom continuous intrathecal baclofen was attempted were matched as closely as possible with a group of 10 patients with spastic quadriplegia out of a total of 100 children who had undergone SFPR in the same time period. Clinical care flow charts were created to identify the various points of contact with members of the health care team, so that cost points could be identified and costs calculated. The cost per patient up to 1 year a after treatment CDN$ 64,163.10 for patients with implanted pumps for continuous intrathecal baclofen versus CDN$ 16,913.54 for SFPR. When adjustments were made to exclude costs and savings associated with research protocols, the average for the baclofen group decreased to approximately CDN$ 63,000, with minimal change for the SFPR group. The higher cost per patient on baclofen was related to the cost associated with screening patients who did not go on to have implantation of a continuous infusion pump, and to additional hospitalization for complications in the baclofen group. It is cautioned that this cost analysis was based on the experience at British Columbia's Children's Hospital, and the results may not be generalizable to other institutions or to other patient populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".