MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Health state utility assessment for low-grade glioma.

2024· article· en· W4400273366 on OpenAlexaff
Debarati Bhanja, Hannah Wilding, Kyle Tuohy, Ahmad Ozair, Nima Hamidi, Leonardo de Macêdo Filho, Liz Salmi, Bethany M. Kwan, Feng Xie, Carlos Velásquez, Michael Glantz, Manmeet S. Ahluwalia, Alireza Mansouri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGliomaOncologyCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e14039 Background: Low-grade gliomas (LGGs, WHO Grade II gliomas) undergo malignant transformation, portending a median survival of 5-15 years. Though resection and adjuvant therapies have significantly improved survival, there are increased risks of long-term neurological decline and treatment-related side effects. As a result, not only quantity but also quality of life (QoL) must be considered when appraising therapeutic paradigms. Health state utility assessments can quantify society’s perceptions of given health states, supporting quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness analyses. The primary and secondary objectives were to calculate LGG health states utility values (UVs) and interpret differences between health states, respectively. Methods: Health state descriptions were developed from a comprehensive literature review, expert input, and focus groups involving neuro-oncology providers and patient advocates. Healthy, adult participants were surveyed through an online REDCap form. Two preference elicitation techniques, visual analog scale (VAS) and time trade-off (TTO), were used to derive UVs of ten LGG health states. UVs are anchored at 0 representing death and 1 for perfect health. Mann-Whitney U tests compared UVs across health states. Results: Ninety-eight participants were included. Most participants were male (52%), aged 18-29 (81.6%), and White or Asian (78%). Stable LGG had the highest UVs (Mean [SD]: VAS- 0.64 [0.21]; TTO- 0.54 [0.42]) compared to Progressive LGG (VAS- 0.44 [0.26], p<0.0001; TTO- 0.36 [0.37], p<0.0001), Stable LGG with Chemoradiation (VAS- 0.43 [0.23], p<0.0001; TTO- 0.32 [0.34], p<0.0001), and Stable LGG with Motor (VAS- 0.45 [0.23], p<0.0001; TTO- 0.23 [0.32], p<0.0001) and Language (VAS- 0.52 [0.22], p<0.0001; TTO- 0.43 [0.40], p=0.04) Deficits. Progressive LGG UVs were not statistically different from those in Progressive LGG with Motor (VAS- 0.43 [0.23], p=0.69; TTO- 0.32 [0.34], p=0.73), Language (VAS- 0.43 [0.23], p=0.62; TTO- 0.32 [0.34], p=0.60), or Visual (VAS- 0.43 [0.23], p=0.78; TTO- 0.32 [0.34], p=0.60) Deficits. Radiation negatively impacted UVs, as UVs of Stable LGG with Chemoradiation (VAS- 0.43 [0.23]; TTO- 0.32 [0.34]) were significantly lower than UVs of Stable LGG with Chemotherapy alone (VAS- 0.43 [0.23], p=0.018; TTO- 0.32 [0.34], p=0.28) on VAS. Conclusions: These are the first-ever reported LGG health state UVs. These data will enable future QALY and cost-effective analyses, which have increasing importance as new investigational therapies become available for LGG.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.721
GPT teacher head0.657
Teacher spread0.063 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→