MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2538248234

COMPARISON OF MEASURES OF UTILITY IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING TOTAL SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY

2009· article· en· W2538248234 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dorcas Beaton, Benjamin G. Escott, Louis Bessette, J. Bukczynski, Jay A. Katz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth Utilities IndexPhysical therapyIndex (typography)ArthroplastyMedicineTotal hip arthroplastyScale (ratio)Operations managementSurgeryEngineeringComputer scienceHealth related quality of life
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health utilities indicate the value of a given health state. They are essential components of decision analyses, and economic evaluations. In the area of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) we were unable to find literature estimating changes in utilities or the effect of method of obtaining utilities. The purpose of this pilot study was to describe the trajectory of utility scores before and after TSA using three approaches: the EQ-5D and the Health Utilities Index (HUI2 and HUI3) self-report format.Twenty-four patients undergoing TSA at two teaching hospitals (Boston and Toronto) were assessed twice preoperatively, as well as at four and twelve weeks follow-up by self report mailed survey. At each survey all three utility estimates were obtained. Demographic and functional status was also gathered. The EQ-5D is a five item questionnaire which scores into a profile to which utility weights obtained from the developers were applied. The HUI self-report is a fifteen item scale obtaining a score on eight doma...

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.390
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.052 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→