The Costs and Benefits of Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery for Patients with Parkinsonâs Disease at Different Stages of Severity â An Initial Exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To estimate the incremental cost per QALY in patients with Parkinson’s Disease (PD) with varying disease severity and to ascertain which patient subgroup would accrue the greatest net monetary benefits to Ontario’s public health perspective as a result of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS). \nDesign: A cost-utility study and a net monetary benefit framework approach were applied to 37 PD patients with varying disease stages who underwent DBS treatment. \nResults: DBS resulted in cost savings of $2,686.3, $2,752.4, and $7348.4 and QALY gains of 0.33, 0.09 and 0.04 in patients with mild, moderate and severe PD. The ICER was $16,076.2/QALY. At $50,000/QALY, the greatest net monetary benefits accrued to Ontario’s MOHLTC were from treating patients with mild PD with DBS. \nConclusions: DBS surgery was found to be a cost-effective PD treatment compared to pharmacotherapy. The greatest net monetary benefits were from treating patients with mild PD severity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".