MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417297318 · doi:10.2196/77891

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Preventing Acute Care Use in Oncology Patients Following Systemic Therapy Using Medicare Claims Data: Retrospective Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4417297318 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sara Alessandra Keller, Maximilian Schuessler, Behzad Naderalvojoud, Tina Seto, Lü Tian, Mohana Roy, Tina Hernandez‐Boussard

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyAcute careCancerSystemic therapyCohort studyHealth careMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Acute care use (ACU) represents a major economic burden in oncology, which can ideally be prevented. Existing models effectively predict such events. Objective: We aimed to quantify the cost savings achieved by implementing a model to predict ACU in oncology patients undergoing systemic therapy. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed patients with cancer at an academic medical center from 2010 to 2022. We included patients who received systemic therapy and identified ACU events occurring after treatment initiation, excluding those with known death dates within the study period. Data on ACU-related expenses were gathered from Medicare claims and mapped to service codes in electronic health records, yielding average daily costs for each patient over 180 days following the start of therapy. The exposure was an ACU event. Results: The main outcome was the average daily cost per patient at the end of the first 180 days of systemic therapy. We observed that expense accumulation flattened earlier and more rapidly among non-ACU patients. This study included 20,556 patients, of whom 3820 (18.58%) experienced at least 1 ACU. The average daily cost per patient for those with and without ACU was US $94.62 (SD US $72.54; 95% CI US $92.32-$96.92) and US $53.28 (SD US $59.92; 95% CI US $52.37-$54.19), respectively. The average total cost per ACU and non-ACU patient was US $17,031.92 (SD US $13,056.63; 95% CI US $16,616.74-$17,445.09) and US $9591.06 (SD US $10,785.83; 95% CI US $9427.64-$9754.48), respectively. To estimate the long-term financial impact of deploying the predictive model, we conducted a cost-benefit analysis based on an annual cohort size of 2177 patients. In the first year alone, the model yielded projected savings of US $910,000. By year 6, projected savings grew to US $9.46 million annually. The cumulative avoided costs over a 6-year deployment period totaled approximately US $31.11 million. These estimates compared the baseline cost model to the intervention model assuming a prevention rate of 35% for preventable ACU events and an average ACU cost of US $17,031.92 (SD US $13,037). Conclusions: Predictive analytics can significantly reduce costs associated with ACU events, enhancing economic efficiency in cancer care. Further research is needed to explore potential health benefits.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207