A cost-utility analysis of liver resection for malignant tumours: a pilot project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a prospective, non-randomized pilot study comparing the cost-utility of hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), systemic chemotherapy, and symptom control only for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases. Seven patients underwent hepatic resection, 7 underwent RFA, 20 received chemotherapy, and 6 received symptom control alone. Liver resection provided an average of 2.51 QALY’s compared to 1.99 QALY’s for RFA, and 1.18 QALY’s for chemotherapy, and 0.82 QALY’s for symptom control alone. The costs were $20,122, $ 15,845, $15,069, and $3,899, respectively. The cost-utilities of liver resection and RFA were similar at $8,027 and $7,965 per QALY, respectively, although patients receiving RFA generally had more advanced disease. The cost-utility of chemotherapy was $12,751/QALY and the cost-utility of symptom control alone was $4,788/QALY. RFA is still a relatively new. However, if long-term survival proves promising, it may prove to be a viable alternative to liver resection.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".