Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Throughout medicine, the cost of various treatments has been increasingly studied with the result that certain management guidelines might be reevaluated in their context. Cost-utility is a term referring to the expense of preventing the loss of quality of life, quantified in dollars per quality-adjusted life year. In 2002, the American Academy of Ophthalmology published hydroxychloroquine screening recommendations which were revised in 2011. The purpose of this report is to estimate the cost-utility of these recommendations. METHODS: A hypothetical care model of screening for hydroxychloroquine retinopathy was formulated. The costs of screening components were calculated using 2016 Medicare fee schedules from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. RESULTS: The cost-utility of screening for hydroxychloroquine retinopathy with the 2011 American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines was found to vary from 33,155 to 344,172 dollars per quality-adjusted life year depending on the type and number of objective screening tests chosen, practice setting, and the duration of hydroxychloroquine use. Screening had a more favorable cost-utility when the more sensitive and specific diagnostics were used, and for patients with an increased risk of toxicity. CONCLUSION: American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines have a wide-ranging cost-utility. Prudent clinical judgment of risk stratification and tests chosen is necessary to optimize cost-utility without compromising the efficacy of screening.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".