Utility Outcome Measures for the Treatment of Ameloblastomas during Childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Our objective was to determine the potential impact of the surgical treatment of ameloblastoma in children through validated health state utility outcome measures. Methods: A survey-based preference health utility assessment using the visual analog scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble methods was undertaken among a general population sample. Quality-adjusted life years were derived from these measures. A one-way ANOVA was used for statistical analysis, with a mean ( P ) value of 0.05 considered significant. Demographic parameters were individually assessed as possible predictors of each utility score. Results: In total, 86 participants took part in this study, with a mean age of 29.9 years. Greater utility scores were observed among participants reporting no religious beliefs ( P = 0.025, t = 2.28). No other demographic parameters showed statistically significant prediction of utility score. From the mean utility scores (± SD) (visual analog scale = 0.60 ± 0.17; time trade-off = 0.65 ± 0.22; standard gamble = 0.64 ± 0.20), a gain of 30.0, 32.3, and 32.1 quality-adjusted life years may be derived, respectively. All utility outcome measures suggested that an ameloblastoma during childhood is perceived as more burdensome than several debilitating conditions, such as cleft lip and palate. Conclusions: To attain perfect health, participants would theoretically undergo surgical treatment of an ameloblastoma during childhood, with willingness to trade off 28.2 years of life and accepting a 35.7% risk of death. The objective assessment of the perceived burden of an ameloblastoma affliction during childhood may inspire cost-utility or cost-effectiveness analyses at broader societal levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".