Cost–utility Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative recurrence of Crohn's disease is common. This study sought to assess whether the postoperative management should be based on biological therapy alone or combined with thiopurines and whether the therapy should be started immediately after surgery or guided by either endoscopic or clinical recurrence. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate expected health outcomes in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs in Canadian dollars (CAD$) accrued by hypothetical patients with high recurrence risk after ileocolic resection. Eight strategies of postoperative management were evaluated. A lifetime time horizon, an annual discount rate of 5%, a societal perspective, and a cost-effectiveness threshold of 50,000 CAD$/QALY were assumed. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. The model was validated against randomized trials and historical cohorts. RESULTS: Three strategies dominated the others: endoscopy-guided full step-up therapy (14.80 QALYs, CAD$ 462,180), thiopurines immediately post-surgery plus endoscopy-guided biological step-up therapy (14.89 QALYs, CAD$ 464,099) and combination therapy immediately post-surgery (14.94 QALYs, CAD$ 483,685). The second strategy was the most cost-effective, assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold of 50,000 CAD$/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the second strategy has the highest probability of being the optimal alternative in all comparisons at cost-effectiveness thresholds from 30,000 to 100,000 CAD$/QALY. The strategies guided only by clinical recurrence and those using biologics alone were dominated. CONCLUSIONS: According to this decision analysis, thiopurines immediately after surgery and addition of biologics guided by endoscopic recurrence is the optimal strategy of postoperative management in patients with Crohn's disease with high risk of recurrence (see Video Abstract, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/IBD/B654).
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.002 |
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".