MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7037066858

The Cost-effectiveness of Early Physical Medicine Rehabilitation (PM) Consultation for Trauma Patients in a Level 1 Trauma Centre in Canada

2021· dissertation· W7037066858 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2021
Typedissertation
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Technology and Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
KeywordsRehabilitationIntervention (counseling)Public healthQuality of life (healthcare)Health careCost effectivenessAverage cost
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physical Medicine Rehabilitation (PM) consultation at Level 1 trauma centres improves clinical outcomes in major trauma patients. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of this intervention is lacking, but important for healthcare payers. PURPOSE: Assess incremental cost for providing PM consultation, per quality adjusted life year (QALY), from single public health payer perspective. METHODS: Probabilistic Markov model incorporating clinical trial data, administrative data and published literature to estimate incremental cost and effect over a life-time horizon. RESULTS: For major trauma sustained at age 18, incremental cost of providing PM consultation was $5,297. Incremental effect was 0.18 QALY. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $29,428/QALY. Incremental effect increases with increased age, decreasing the ICER to $16,150/QALY for trauma sustained at age 75. CONCLUSIONS: PM consultation is associated with increased cost and increased QALY. Across all age groups, the ICER falls below a $50,000/QALY threshold, indicating PM consultation is likely a cost-effective intervention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicMilitary Technology and Strategies→French-language works237,207→