Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) is a national body that provides Canada's federal, provincial and territorial health care decision makers with timely, relevant, rigorously derived, evidence-based information to support the decision-making processes. CADTH has taken responsibility for the development of guidelines for the conduct of economic evaluations, with the first edition released in November 1994. The guidelines have since undergone two substantive review processes, in October 1997 and most recently the release of the third edition in April 2006. The current edition reflects experience gained through using the second edition, takes into account methodological developments in the field of economic evaluation that have occurred since 1997, and expands guidance beyond pharmaceuticals to health technologies. The Common Drug Review (CDR), one of CADTH's programs, will be used as an example to illustrate the relevance and application of the CADTH's economic evaluation guidelines. The CDR is a single process for conducting objective, rigorous reviews of the clinical and economic evidence for new drugs in the assessment of cost effectiveness, and providing formulary listing recommendations to the publicly funded drug plans in Canada (except Quebec). Since the CDR does not conduct its own economic evaluations, instead critiquing the economic evaluations submitted by the manufacturer, its ability to comment on the cost effectiveness of new drugs is highly dependent on the quality of information submitted by manufacturers. As a result, the CDR relies heavily on the guidance provided by the CADTH economic evaluation guidelines. In the most recent version of the guidelines, the experiences of CDR have led to changes or refinements in key guideline statements, such as perspective, choice of comparator, choice of analysis or analytic technique, and inclusion of resource use and costs. This presentation will highlight the changes to the most recent edition of the CADTH economic evaluation guidelines, reflect on why these changes were made, and raise issues that will need to be addressed in subsequent versions of the guidelines. The presentation will include a summary of adherence to the guidelines based on the experience of the CDR.
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 | 0.160 | 0.379 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.040 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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".