Cost evaluation to optimise radiation therapy implementation in different income settings: A time-driven activity-based analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With increasing recognition of growing cancer incidence globally, efficient means of expanding radiotherapy capacity is imperative, and understanding the factors impacting human and financial needs is valuable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A time-driven activity-based costing analysis was performed, using a base case of 2-machine departments, with defined cost inputs and operating parameters. Four income groups were analysed, ranging from low to high income. Scenario analyses included department size, operating hours, fractionation, treatment complexity, efficiency, and centralised versus decentralised care. RESULTS: The base case cost/course is US$5,368 in HICs, US$2,028 in LICs; the annual operating cost is US$4,595,000 and US$1,736,000, respectively. Economies of scale show cost/course decreasing with increasing department size, mainly related to the equipment cost and most prominent up to 3 linacs. The cost in HICs is two or three times as high as in U-MICs or LICs, respectively. Decreasing operating hours below 8h/day has a dramatic impact on the cost/course. IMRT increases the cost/course by 22%. Centralising preparatory activities has a moderate impact on the costs. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate trends that are useful for optimising local and regional circumstances. This methodology can provide input into a uniform and accepted approach to evaluating the cost of radiotherapy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".