MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121035436 · doi:10.1586/erp.10.80

Medical and employment-related costs of epilepsy in the USA

2010· letter· en· W2121035436 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Metcalfe, Nathalie Jetté

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyMedicineBusinessActuarial scienceEconomicsPublic economicsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluation of: Ivanova JI, Birnbaum HG, Kidolezi Y et al. Economic burden of epilepsy among the privately insured in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 28(8), 675-685 (2010). Epilepsy is a chronic condition characterized by recurrent unprovoked seizures. Epilepsy is typically treated with antiepileptic drugs, although surgery is superior to medical therapy for those who are resistant to medications, and is more more cost effective when successful. The discussion article examines the direct medical costs of epilepsy and the rate of medically related absenteeism compared with a matched control group in the USA. Individuals with epilepsy were found to have significantly higher medical costs and more short- and long-term disability days. This article demonstrates that claims data can be used to assess the indirect impact of epilepsy on employment; however, the addition of other datasets is necessary to more comprehensively assess the impact of epilepsy on employment-related outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.464 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes ResearchSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207