MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607305562 · doi:10.1002/jca.21542

A transition from using multi‐step procedures to a fully integrated system for performing extracorporeal photopheresis: A comparison of costs and efficiencies

2017· article· en· W2607305562 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Apheresis · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsExtracorporeal PhotopheresisMedicineActivity-based costingPhotopheresisTotal costOperations managementSurgeryEngineeringTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.574
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.044 · 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