Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a scarcity of literature exploring Health Economics in Prosthetics and Orthotics (P&O). The P&O sector has, over the past decades, moved to a Bachelor’s or Masters Degree level as the requirement for entry to practice and, with that, there has been a growing body of research and knowledge generation focusing primarily on clinical aspects and engineering advances. No corresponding body of research has emerged on the economic aspects of P&O, creating a fundamental weakness in both technical and clinical research efforts to advance this field within an economically sustainable framework. This weakness will become critical as data driven engineering advances (e.g. exoskeletons, mass customizable prostheses) and clinical improvements (e.g. osseointegration, diabetes treatments) will make reimbursement for devices ever more complex and challenging. The tension between what is possible and what is fundable will increase unless what is possible also drives down costs. Finding the right balance in Prosthetics and Orthotics will be a challenge, as this sector already struggles to justify current standards of care. This Special Edition takes a snapshot of stakeholder perspectives and opinions on the topic of Health Economics in P&O and is organized around the following stakeholder groups: End-user, Researcher (Engineering and Clinical), Prosthetic and Orthotic Practitioner and, of critical importance, four papers describing an interdisciplinary project on the Health Economics of Osseointegration that was led by a payor. Each author was also asked to provide a “Call to Action” in which they identify one or more key areas that need to be addressed in order to move forward with the barriers or opportunities they have identified in their paper. The intent of the Special Edition is to generate discussion and encourage more in-depth research on this topic. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/37135/28295 How To Cite: Raschke S.U. Editor’s perspective on health economics in prosthetics and orthotics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021; Volume 4, Issue 2, No.1. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i2.37135 Corresponding Author: Silvia Ursula Raschke, PhDBritish Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT), 3700 Willingdon Avenue, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.E-Mail: Silvia_Raschke@bcit.caORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7964-4295
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 | 0.015 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".