MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391714390 · doi:10.12968/jowc.2024.33.sup2b.1

Interpreting economic evaluations of healthcare interventions: A simple guide

2024· article· en· W4391714390 on OpenAlexaff
Luke Paterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wound Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Economics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineHealth careSimple (philosophy)Value (mathematics)Health professionalsValue for moneyNursingPublic economicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This guide aims to help healthcare professionals of all backgrounds make sense of economic evaluations to determine whether interventions represent value for money.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.124
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.124
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.020

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 head0.292
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.226 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wound CareSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207