The acceptability of the risk of death in the treatment of respiratory diseases in France
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The costs associated with respiratory illnesses in the French healthcare budget continue to rise. However, pharmaceutical companies and research centres are continuously developing new treatments. Consequently, accepting these treatments, which necessitates the acceptance of the mortality risk associated with their use, represents a significant economic and public health issue. Our study aims to assess this acceptance. METHODS: The data were obtained from an online questionnaire completed by 315 respondents located in France during June and July 2019. The standard gamble method was employed to ascertain the acceptability of risk. This method quantifies the 'disutility' of a health state by evaluating the extent to which an individual is willing to accept a specific mortality risk in exchange for avoiding the state. RESULTS: The study demonstrated that individuals, irrespective of their personal characteristics, were willing to accept a treatment with an average mortality risk of less than 19%. The findings revealed discrepancies between individuals' perceptions of mortality and actual risks. CONCLUSIONS: In France, it is incumbent upon public decision-makers and research centres to ensure that treatment-related mortality rates remain below 19% so that patients readily accept treatment, irrespective of their personal characteristics. In addition, they should provide further information on the risks associated with treating respiratory diseases to avoid a discrepancy between the mortality risks perceived by individuals and the actual risks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it