Cost‐Effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance‐Guided Focused Ultrasound for Essential Tremor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency thalamotomy and deep brain stimulation are current treatments for moderate to severe medication-refractory essential tremor. However, they are invasive and thus carry risks. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound is a new, less invasive surgical option. The objective of the present study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound compared with standard treatments in Canada. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a Markov cohort model. We compared magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound with no surgery in people ineligible for invasive neurosurgery and with radiofrequency thalamotomy and deep brain stimulation in people eligible for invasive neurosurgery. In the reference case analysis, we used a 5-year time horizon and a public payer perspective and discounted costs and benefits at 1.5% per year. RESULTS: Compared with no surgery in people ineligible for invasive neurosurgery, magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound cost $21,438 more but yielded 0.47 additional quality-adjusted life years, producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $45,817 per quality-adjusted life year gained. In people eligible for invasive neurosurgery, magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound was slightly less effective but much less expensive compared with the current standard of care, deep brain stimulation. The results were sensitive to assumptions regarding the time horizon, cost of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound, and probability of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In people ineligible for invasive neurosurgery, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound versus no surgery is comparable to many other tests and treatments that are widely adopted in high-income countries. In people eligible for invasive neurosurgery, magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound is also a reasonable option. © 2018 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".