MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981257856 · doi:10.36469/9844

The Direct Healthcare Expenditures of Prostate Cancer by Disease Severity: Evidence from US National Survey Data

2016· article· en· W2981257856 on OpenAlexaff
Peter J. Mallow, Jie Chen, John A. Rizzo, John R. Penrod, Géralyn C. Trudel, Teresa Zyczynski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of health economics and outcomes research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsBristol-Myers Squibb (Canada)
FundersBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineMedical Expenditure Panel SurveyDiagnosis codeProstate cancerChemotherapyCancerDiseaseHealth carePopulationInternal medicineMultivariate analysisIndirect costsOncologyHealth insuranceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In the United States, approximately 2.8 million men have a history of prostate cancer (PC). Objective: This study quantified the effects of PC, overall and by disease severity on direct healthcare costs to insurers and patients. Methods: Using 1996–2010 data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a large, nationally representative US database, multivariate analyses were used to assess the relationship between PC and direct annual healthcare costs to insurers and patients, at individual and US aggregate levels. Men aged 40 years and older with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis code 185 were identified. Disease severity was determined with clinical assistance and based, in part, on the data in MEPS. The cohorts were: localized cancer not treated with chemotherapy, localized cancer treated with chemotherapy, and metastatic cancer. Results: The MEPS database included 1297 patients with PC: 811 patients with localized PC not treated with chemotherapy, 426 patients with PC treated with chemotherapy, and 60 patients with metastatic PC. PC had a larger effect on incremental costs for metastatic patients, $20 357, vs $16 709 for localized PC with chemotherapy, and $5238 for localized PC with no chemotherapy. When aggregated to the US population, PC accounted for an incremental annual cost of $15 billion. The largest aggregate annual costs were incurred by patients with localized PC treated with chemotherapy ($8.6 billion), compared to those not treated with chemotherapy ($4.8 billion) and metastatic patients ($1.6 billion). Conclusions: The aggregate annual costs of PC are substantial for all groups examined and greatest for patients with localized cancer treated with chemotherapy. This reflects the relatively high prevalence and high per capita healthcare expenditures associated with this group. With a growing and aging population, the prevalence of PC is expected to rise, increasing the burden on public health.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of health economics and outcomes researchSame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207