Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Molecular Testing for Indeterminate Thyroid Nodules in Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of the following retrospective review was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of molecular testing of indeterminate thyroid nodules compared to current management practices in Nova Scotia, Canada. METHODS: All cases of cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules from January 1st, 2014 to December 31st, 2018 were reviewed. All interventions related to an indeterminate thyroid nodule were recorded. Patients were excluded if less than 18 years old if no further information regarding medical management was electronically available beyond the diagnosis of an indeterminate thyroid nodule, history of radiation, or previous thyroid surgery prior to diagnosis of an indeterminate thyroid nodule in the remaining lobe. Microcosting was performed to determine the cost of all relevant interventions including repeat fine needle aspiration biopsy, ultrasound, thyroid surgery(s), and molecular testing. Institution-specific transition state probabilities were calculated and used to build a cost-effectiveness analysis model. Model output was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, defined as the ratio of cost difference to effectiveness difference between routine molecular testing and the current management strategy, yielding cost per surgery avoided. RESULTS: The mean effectiveness of the current management of indeterminate thyroid nodules in Nova Scotia based on the American Thyroid Association guidelines is 64% at a mean cost of $6431, while the simulated mean effectiveness of routine molecular testing is 89% at a mean cost of $8414. Differences in management strategies generated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7876 per surgery avoided. CONCLUSION: Routine molecular testing is the more effective strategy for the appropriate management of indeterminate thyroid nodules; however, it comes at a higher mean cost compared to the current management strategy. As the cost of molecular testing continues to decrease, and the cost of OR resources continues to rise, molecular testing is likely to become the optimal strategy in Nova Scotia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".