A transition from using multi‐step procedures to a fully integrated system for performing extracorporeal photopheresis: A comparison of costs and efficiencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital Hemobiotherapy Department, Paris, France, has been providing extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) since November 2011, and started using the Therakos® CELLEX® fully integrated system in 2012. This report summarizes our single‐center experience of transitioning from the use of multi‐step ECP procedures to the fully integrated ECP system, considering the capacity and cost implications. Materials and Methods The total number of ECP procedures performed 2011–2015 was derived from department records. The time taken to complete a single ECP treatment using a multi‐step technique and the fully integrated system at our department was assessed. Resource costs (2014€) were obtained for materials and calculated for personnel time required. Time‐driven activity‐based costing methods were applied to provide a cost comparison. Results The number of ECP treatments per year increased from 225 (2012) to 727 (2015). The single multi‐step procedure took 270 min compared to 120 min for the fully integrated system. The total calculated per‐session cost of performing ECP using the multi‐step procedure was greater than with the CELLEX® system (€1,429.37 and €1,264.70 per treatment, respectively). Conclusions For hospitals considering a transition from multi‐step procedures to fully integrated methods for ECP where cost may be a barrier, time‐driven activity‐based costing should be utilized to gain a more comprehensive understanding the full benefit that such a transition offers. The example from our department confirmed that there were not just cost and time savings, but that the time efficiencies gained with CELLEX® allow for more patient treatments per year.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".