MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292965968 · doi:10.3111/13696998.2016.1148043

Estimating healthcare resource use associated with the treatment of metastatic melanoma in eight countries

2016· article· en· W2292965968 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jan McKendrick, Merel Gijsen, Casey Quinn, Beth Barber, Zhongyun Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Economics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Society for Medical OncologyAmgen
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careHealth careRadiation oncologistDelphi methodDiseaseFamily medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicineOncologyRadiation therapyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Studies reporting healthcare resourse use (HRU) for melanoma, one of the most costly cancers to treat, are limited. Using consistent, robust methodology, this study estimated HRU associated with the treatment of metastatic melanoma in eight countries. Methods Using published literature and clinician input, treatment phases were identified: active systemic treatment (pre-progression); disease progression; best supportive care (BSC)/palliative care; and terminal care. HRU elements were identified for each phase and estimates of the magnitude and frequency of use in clinical practice were obtained through country-specific Delphi panels, comprising healthcare professionals with experience in oncology (n = 8). Results Medical oncologists are the key care providers for patients with metastatic melanoma, although in Germany dermato-oncologists also lead care. During the active systemic treatment phase, each patient was estimated to require 0.83-2 consultations with a medical oncologist/month across countries; the median number of such assessments in 3 months was highest in Canada (range = 3.5-5) and lowest in France, the Netherlands and Spain (1). Resource use during the disease progression phase was intensive and similar across countries: all patients were estimated to consult with medical oncologists and 10-40% with a radiation oncologist; up to 40% were estimated to require a brain MRI scan. During the BSC/palliative care phase, all patients were estimated to consult with medical oncologists, and most to consult with a primary care physician (40-100%). Limitations Panelists were from centers of excellence, thus results may not reflect care within smaller hospitals; data obtained from experts may be less variable than data from broader clinical practice. Treatments for metastatic melanoma are continually emerging, thus some elements of our work could be superseded. Conclusions HRU estimates were substantial and varied across countries for some resources. These data could be used with country-specific costs to elucidate costs for the management of metastatic melanoma.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EconomicsSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207