[How Long Should We Continue the Chemotherapy?-From the View Point of Health Economics].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The continuation of cancer chemotherapy was examined from the view point of the patient's economic burden and the national finance. Along with the rapid technological progress, anti-cancer drugs become more and more expensive. According to our survey, not a little patient was obliged to give up the most appropriate treatment due to some economic reasons. The impact of the increasing cost of cancer treatment and the rational measure to minimize the patient's burden were discussed. The mean out-of-pocket expense of the patients without economic worries was three-fourths that of the patients with economic worries. In other words, if the economic burden is reduced by around a quarter in the patients whose burden is heavy, they would certainly receive optimal medical care. As for the situation in which the cancer chemotherapy have to be interrupted due to the constraint of limited funding, it seemed difficult to continue to avoid this thoroughly in the future without the drastic reform of medical insurance system. The importance to set priorities and allocate human and financial resources within the financial crunch was discussed while making reference to health care reforms of several western countries in the late 1990's.
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 | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".