MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893216000 · doi:10.1177/0194599818800477

Evidence‐Based Medicine in Otolaryngology Part 9: Valuing Health Outcomes

2018· review· en· W2893216000 on OpenAlexafffund
Lisa Caulley, M. G. Myriam Hunink, Shaun Kilty, Vikas Metha, George A. Scangas, Danielle Rodin, Gregory W. Randolph, Jennifer J. Shin

Bibliographic record

VenueOtolaryngology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of the United Kingdom
KeywordsObservational studyValuation (finance)OtorhinolaryngologyTime-trade-offQuality-adjusted life yearActuarial scienceEconomic evaluationQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineMental healthResource allocationPsychologyMedical educationComputer scienceCost effectivenessBusinessNursingRisk analysis (engineering)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decisions about resource allocation are increasingly based on value trade-offs between health outcomes and cost. This process relies on comprehensive and standardized definitions of health status that accurately measure the physical, mental, and social well-being of patients across disease states. These metrics, assessed through clinical trials, observational studies, and health surveys, can facilitate the integration of patient preferences into clinical practice. This ninth installment in the Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology Series is a practical overview of health outcome valuation, as well as the integration of both quality and quantity of life into standardized metrics for health research, program planning, and resource allocation. Tools for measuring preference-based health states, measures of effectiveness, and the application of metrics in economic evaluations are discussed.

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 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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.007

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 head0.519
Teacher spread0.111 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtolaryngologySame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207