MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390022388 · doi:10.3201/eid3001.230427

Costs of Digital Adherence Technologies for Tuberculosis Treatment Support, 2018–2021

2023· article· en· W4390022388 on OpenAlexaff
Ntwali Placide Nsengiyumva, Amera Khan, Maricelle Ma. Tarcela S. Gler, Mariecef L. Tonquin, Danaida Marcelo, Mark C. Andrews, Karine Duverger, Shahriar Ahmed, Tasmia Ibrahim, Sayera Banu, Sonia Sultana, Mona Lisa Morales, Andre Villanueva, Egwumo Efo, Baraka Onjare, Cristina Celan, Kevin Schwartzman

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging infectious diseases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTanzaniaTuberculosisDrug resistant tuberculosisMedicineYield (engineering)Drug pricesBusinessMycobacterium tuberculosisSocioeconomicsEconomicsPublic economicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital adherence technologies are increasingly used to support tuberculosis (TB) treatment adherence. Using microcosting, we estimated healthcare system costs (in 2022 US dollars) of 2 digital adherence technologies, 99DOTS medication sleeves and video-observed therapy (VOT), implemented in demonstration projects during 2018-2021. We also obtained cost estimates for standard directly observed therapy (DOT). Estimated per-person costs of 99DOTS for drug-sensitive TB were $98 in Bangladesh (n = 719), $119 in the Philippines (n = 396), and $174 in Tanzania (n = 976). Estimated per-person costs of VOT were $1,154 in Haiti (87 drug-sensitive), $304 in Moldova (173 drug-sensitive), $452 in Moldova (135 drug-resistant), and $661 in the Philippines (110 drug-resistant). 99DOTS costs may be similar to or less expensive than standard DOT. VOT is more expensive, although in some settings, labor cost offsets or economies of scale may yield savings. 99DOTS and VOT may yield savings to local programs if donors cover infrastructure costs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerging infectious diseasesSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207