Literature Review: Cost Calculation of Blood Services in Some Countries (Based on HDI Level)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The blood processing replacement costs (BPPD) establishment in Indonesia is an incomprehensive cost calculation for blood services. Several countries have calculated costs for blood services at health care institutions through an activity framework plus generated blood products and components costs as well as blood services fees. This study aims to discuss the cost calculation method for blood services carried out in Zimbabwe, Canada, United Kingdom, Greece and India. It was a literature review conducted by accessing scientific articles sourced from the Google Scholar database. A total of 11 articles were collected, but only 5 with relevant topics were discussed. Blood service cost calculation provides information of various activities involved in producing a product and service. Also, blood service framework model determination was needed as a cost center for estimation to prevent duplication. Each activity's total output from the cost center was used in calculating the unit cost of the activity or product. The blood products and components include whole blood, red blood cells, platelets, plasma (FFP), and cryoprecipitate. Each of the blood components require a different cost determined by the activity involved in their production.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".