An assessment of uncertainty using two different modelling techniques to estimate the cost effectiveness of mitigating radon in existing housing in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The burden of lung cancer associated with residential radon in existing housing can be reduced by interventions to screen and mitigate existing housing having radon levels above a mitigation threshold. The objective of this study is to estimate the cost effectiveness of radon interventions for screening and mitigation of existing housing for the 2016 population in Canada and to assess the structural uncertainty associated with the choice of model used in the cost-utility analysis. The incremental cost utility ratios are estimated using both a Markov cohort model and a discrete event simulation model. A societal perspective, a lifetime horizon and a discount rate of 1.5% are adopted. At a radon mitigation threshold of 200 (100) Bq/m3, the discounted ICERs for current rates of screening and mitigation of existing housing are 72,569 (68,758) $/QALY using a Markov cohort model and 84,828 (76,917) $/QALY using discrete event simulation. It appears that minimal structural uncertainty is associated with the choice of model used for this cost-utility analysis, and the cost effectiveness would improve at increased rates of radon testing and mitigation. The mitigation of radon in existing housing is estimated to be a practical policy option for reducing the associated lung cancer burden in Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".