MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098391174 · doi:10.1586/erp.10.24

QALY weights for neurosensory impairments in pediatric economic evaluations: case studies and a critique

2010· review· en· W2098391174 on OpenAlexaff
Scott D. Grosse, Lisa A. Prosser, Keiko Asakawa, David Feeny

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionKaiser Permanente
KeywordsPsychological interventionQuality-adjusted life yearMedicineRobustness (evolution)Health economicsQuality of life (healthcare)Intellectual disabilityCost effectivenessPediatricsPublic healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of utility weights for the calculation of quality-adjusted life years is particularly problematic for pediatric health states. This article reviews variability in utility weights for intellectual disability and permanent hearing loss in economic evaluations of newborn screening and childhood immunizations. Utility weights for severe intellectual disability ranged from 0.06 to 0.74. Most studies either did not vary these utility weights in sensitivity analyses or assumed low variability; consequently, the robustness of cost-effectiveness estimates was not fully assessed. Two recently published catalogs of utility weights for pediatric health states also show wide divergences in estimates. More work is needed to establish measures of health utilities for childhood health states in order to allow for comparable assessments of pediatric interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.457
GPT teacher head0.691
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes ResearchSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207