The Use of Precision Epigenetic Methods for the Diagnosis and Care of Stable Coronary Heart Disease Reduces Healthcare Costs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The cost of secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) is continuing to increase, with a substantial portion of this acceleration being driven by the expense of confirmatory diagnostic testing. Conceivably, newly developed precision epigenetic technologies could drive down these costs. However, at the current time, their impact on overall expense for CHD care is poorly understood. We hypothesized that the use of a newly developed, highly sensitive, and specific epigenetic test, PrecisionCHD, could decrease the costs of secondary prevention. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, we constructed a budget impact analysis using a cost calculation model that examined the effects of substituting PrecisionCHD for conventional CHD diagnostic tests on the expenses of the initial evaluation and first year of care of stable CHD using a 1-year time horizon with no discounting. RESULTS: The model projected that for a commercial insurer with one million members, full adoption of PrecisionCHD as the primary method of initial CHD assessment would save approximately $113.6 million dollars in the initial year. CONCLUSION: These analyses support the use of precision epigenetic methods as part of the initial diagnosis and care of stable CHD and can meaningfully reduce cost. Real-world pilots to test the reliability of these analyses are indicated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".