Bibliographic record
Abstract
Part I. Methods Nonfederal US Hospital Costs Steven D. Culler and Adam Atherly Estimating the Costs of Cardiac Care Provided by the Hospitals of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Paul G. Barnett, Patricia Lin, and Todd H. Wagner Estimating the Costs of Health Care Resources in Canada Gordon Blackhouse US Physician Costs: Conceptual and Methodological Issues and Selected Applications Edmund R. Becker Indirect Health Care Costs: An Overview Stephen J. Boccuzzi Health Status Assessment John A. Spertus and Mark W. Conard Utility Assessment John A. Spertus and Robert F. Nease, Jr. Introduction to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Robert F. Nease, Jr. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials: Statistical and Methodological Issues Elizabeth M. Mahoney and Haitao Chu Part II. Clinical Applications Costs of Care and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Primary Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease Kevin A. Schulman and Padma Kaul Economics of Therapy for Acute Coronary Syndromes Daniel B. Mark Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions David J. Cohen and Ameet Bakhai Economic Comparisons of Coronary Angioplasty and Coronary Bypass Surgery Mark A. Hlatky Costs of Coronary Artery Surgery and Cost-Effectiveness of CABG vs Medicine Sean C. Beinart and William S. Weintraub Costs of Care and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Other Cardiac Surgery Vinod H. Thourani and William S. Weintraub Congestive Heart Failure Mikhail Torosoff, Claude-Laurent Sader, and Edward F. Philbin, III Current Economic Evidence Using Noninvasive Cardiac Testing Leslee J. Shaw, Rita Redberg, and Charles Denham Cost-Effective Care in the Management of Conduction Disease and Arrhythmias David J. Malenka and Edward Catherwood Comparing Cost-Utility Analyses in Cardiovascular Medicine Wolfgang C. Winkelmayer, David J. Cohen, Marc L. Berger, and Peter J. Neumann Beyond Heart Disease: Cost-Effectiveness as a Guide to Comparing Alternate Approaches to Improving the Nation's Health Tammy O. Tengs and Nicholas P. Emptage Using Economic Studies for Policy Purposes Rajiv Shah and Kevin G. M. Volpp Medicare, the Aging of America, and the Balanced Budget Paul Heidenreich Afterword: The Future of Economics in Cardiovascular Care and Research William S. Weintraub Index
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.021 |
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".