Cost in perspective: direct assessment of American market acceptability of Co-60 in gynecologic high-dose-rate brachytherapy and contrast with experience abroad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: While Ir-192 remains the mainstay isotope for gynecologic high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy in the U.S., Co-60 is used abroad. Co-60 has a longer half-life than Ir-192, which may lead to long-term cost savings; however, its higher energy requires greater shielding. This study analyzes Co-60 acceptability based on a one-time expense of additional shielding and reports the financial experience of Co-60 in Peru's National Cancer Institute, which uses both isotopes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A nationwide survey was undertaken assessing physician knowledge of Co-60 and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for additional shielding, assuming a source more cost-effective than Ir-192 was available. With 440 respondents, 280 clinicians were decision-makers and provided WTPs, with results previously reported. After completing a shielding report, we estimated costs for shielding expansion, noting acceptability to decision makers' WTP. Using activity-based costing, we note the Peruvian fiscal experience. RESULTS: Shielding estimates ranged from $173,000 to $418,000. The percentage of respondents accepting high-density modular or lead shielding (for union and non-union settings) were 17.5%, 11.4%, 3.9%, and 3.2%, respectively. Shielding acceptance was associated with greater number of radiation oncologists in a respondent's department but not time in practice or the American Brachytherapy Society membership. Peru's experience noted cost savings with Co-60 of $52,400 annually. CONCLUSIONS: By comparing the cost of additional shielding for a sample institution's HDR suite with radiation oncologists' WTP, this multi-institutional collaboration noted < 20% of clinicians would accept additional shielding. Despite low acceptability in the US, Co-60 demonstrates cost-favorability in Peru and may similarly in other locations.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".