Model-based cost-impact analysis of a diagnostic test for patients with community-acquired pneumonia in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: (LMMBV) is a novel diagnostic test that can support clinicians in differentiating bacterial from viral infections and guide diagnostic-driven antibiotic prescribing. METHODS: We developed a cost-impact model to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of using LMMBV with the current standard of care (SOC) versus SOC alone among a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 CAP patients presenting to the emergency department. The analysis was conducted from a Canadian public health payer's perspective. Outcomes of interest included antibiotic use (number of patients and days saved), hospital admission (admissions avoided and days saved), intensive care unit admission, adverse events, and clostridium difficile infection. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore parameter uncertainty. Scenario analyses were conducted according to age group, province, and impact of LMMBV on hospitalization. RESULTS: In the base case, LMMBV plus SOC reduced the number of patients prescribed antibiotic treatment (429 patients avoided) and the total number of antibiotic treatment days (1,020 days avoided). The per-patient cost savings were $504.96 compared to SOC alone. These findings were consistent across all sensitivity and scenario analyses. Assuming full adoption of LMMBV, the per patient cost savings are projected to result in more than $163 million in total savings annually in Canada based on population estimates and published incidence data. CONCLUSION: Considering the burden of CAP and antimicrobial resistance to the health care system, the use of LMMBV with SOC can offer both clinical and economic benefits to Canadian public payers.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".