RESPONSE TO THE LETTER TO THE EDITOR REGARDING "HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF MICROPROCESSOR AND NON-MICROPROCESSOR-CONTROLLED PROSTHETIC KNEES"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We responded to comments by Brüggenjürgen et al. (https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v8i2.46339) regarding our study on cost-effectiveness of different prosthesis types (https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v8i2.45823). We explained why small effect differences lead to high ICUR values and clarify our costing approach. We emphasized the need for future studies on prosthesis life-cycle, long-term outcomes, and improved quality-of-life measures for more accurate evaluations. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/46486/34608 How To Cite: Bosman C.E, van der Sluis C.K, Vrieling A.H, Geertzen J.H.B, Seves B.L, Groen H. Response to the letter to the editor regarding “Health economic evaluation of microprocessor and non-microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees". Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2025; Volume 8, Issue 2, No. 7. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v8i2.46486 Corresponding Author: Professor Henk Groen, Affiliation: Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.E-Mail: h.groen01@umcg.nlORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6629-318X
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".