Cost comparison of genetic and clinical screening in families with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoglin (ENG) and ALK-1 mutations cause hereditary hemorrhagic telangiecstasia (HHT), an autosomal dominant disorder leading to vascular dysplasia in the form of mucocutaneous telangiectasia and visceral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). We proposed to compare two alternative strategies for management of HHT: screening HHT families with molecular diagnostic tests followed by targeted clinical screening versus conventional clinical screening. A decision analytic model was constructed to compare screening strategies for a hypothetical HHT family. The family consists of 1 index case and 13 relatives. The clinical screening protocol in use at the Canadian HHT Center in Toronto was assumed to be the standard of care. Unit costs for clinical screening (in Canadian dollars) were obtained from the 2003 Ontario Health Insurance Schedule of Benefits. Genetic screening costs were estimated for quantitative multiplex PCR and sequencing of Endoglin (ENG) and ALK-1 genes, as performed at HHT Solutions, Toronto. The genetic screening strategy resulted in a net cost of $4,060 per individual versus $5,975 for the clinical screening strategy. The genetic screening strategy would save $1,915 per family member or $26,810 saved per family. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the genetic screening strategy was cost saving over all plausible ranges of input variables for all hypothetical families tested. We concluded that a genetic screening strategy with targeted clinical screening is more economically attractive than conventional clinical screening and results in a reduction in the number of clinical tests for family members who do not have HHT.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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; 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".