The cost and cost trajectory of whole‐genome analysis guiding treatment of patients with advanced cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the real-world costs of applying whole-genome analysis (WGA) in a clinical setting. We estimated the costs of applying WGA to guide treatments for patients with advanced cancers and characterized how costs evolve over time. METHODS: The setting is the British Columbia Cancer Agency Personalized OncoGenomics (POG) program in British Columbia, Canada. Cost data were obtained for patients who enrolled in the program from 2012 to 2015. We estimated mean WGA costs using bootstrapping. We applied time series analysis and produced 10-year forecasts to determine when costs are expected to reach critical thresholds. RESULTS: The mean cost of WGA over the study period was CDN$34,886 per patient (95% CI: $34,051, $35,721). Over time, WGA costs decreased, driven by a reduction in costs of sequencing. Yet, costs of other components of WGA increased. Forecasting showed WGA costs may not reach critical thresholds within the next 10 years. CONCLUSION: WGA costs decreased over the studied time horizon, but expenditures needed to realize WGA remain significant. Future research exploring costs and benefits of WGA-guided cancer care are crucial to guide health policy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".