MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A population-based comparison of cancer and non-cancer related healthcare costs.

2018· article· en· W2892130770 on OpenAlexaffabout
Davis Sam, Winson Y. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHealth carePopulationCancerContext (archaeology)Total costIncidence (geometry)DiseaseIndirect costsEnvironmental healthEmergency medicineInternal medicineAccountingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18900 Background: Costs associated with cancer care are increasing. Evaluating costs in the context of common comorbidities has not been extensively studied in a population-based setting. Knowledge from such analyses can better inform healthcare resource allocation and highlight strategies to reduce overall costs. Methods: Using data from a population-based administrative database comprised of health insurance claims, physician billing, and hospital discharge abstracts, we calculated healthcare costs (in CAD) for common comorbidities among the pediatric and adult population of a Canadian province for the 2014/15 fiscal year. We calculated incidence-adjusted healthcare costs for common cancers and comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease. Subgroup analysis was also performed for provincial administrative regions. Results: Total costs related to cancer care amounted to $522M for the province, of which $74M (14%) were attributed to radiation and chemotherapy. Among different cancer subtypes, hematologic malignancies were most costly at $78M, accounting for 15% of the total cancer budget, followed by colon cancer at $51M (10%) and lung cancer at $45M (9%). Cancer costs both with and without accounting for radiation and chemotherapy surpassed those of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, mental health, and trauma, but were exceeded by the costs of liver disease (Table 1). Cancer costs varied by provincial administrative region. Conclusions: Cancer costs were greater than those of other common comorbidities, both with and without the costs of radiation and chemotherapy. Using provincial datasets to establish cost trends can help inform healthcare allocation and budget decision-making. Table 1. Incidence-adjusted costs (in CAD) per person per year for cancer and comorbidities. R&C = radiation and chemotherapy. Total Costs Cancer, with R&C 1951 Cancer, without R&C 1917 Cardiovascular disease 806 Diabetes mellitus 663 Liver disease 5208 Musculoskeletal disease 656 Mental health issues 487 Trauma 613

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.630
GPT teacher head0.636
Teacher spread0.007 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→