MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607026570 · doi:10.1016/j.breast.2017.03.014

The reality of economics for oncologists

2017· review· en· W2607026570 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David G. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Breast · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineValue for moneyInvestment (military)Value (mathematics)Breast cancerHealth economicsEconomic growthPublic economicsCancerNursingInternal medicinePublic healthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article outlines the historical development of health economics and its present role in oncology related health technology assessments (HTAs). Despite concerns about the prices and immediate costs of new anticancer medicines for indications such as breast cancer overall spending on such treatments is affordable and offers long term value for money in countries such as the US, Canada and those of Western Europe. Oncologists wishing to protect the interests of current and future patients with both advanced and earlier stage cancers may be regarded as having a responsibility to understand the nature of health economic evaluations, and to be actively involved in decisions affecting access to current treatments and future levels of investment in incrementally improving therapies.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.825
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe BreastSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207