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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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