MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386854727 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(23)00351-0

Challenges of calculating cost-effectiveness thresholds

2023· letter· en· W4386854727 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Vallejo‐Torres, Karl Claxton, Laura C. Edney, Jonathan Karnon, James Lomas, Jessica Ochalek, Mike Paulden, Niek Stadhouders, David J. Vanness

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife expectancyCost effectivenessExcellenceCost-effectiveness analysisHealth careGlobeQuality-adjusted life yearExpectancy theoryScopusActuarial sciencePublic economicsEconomicsMEDLINEBusinessPolitical scienceRisk analysis (engineering)MedicineEnvironmental healthEconomic growthManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health systems around the globe use cost-effectiveness analysis to support health funding decisions. Cost-effectiveness analysis compares benefits associated with new technologies with benefits necessarily forsaken when resources are displaced to pay for the new technologies. Systems aiming to improve the health of their populations but facing a budget constraint should use cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) that reflect the health opportunity costs of funding decisions.1

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)0.200
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.611
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2000.611
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.015
Open science0.0090.007
Research integrity0.0110.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.659
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.140 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207