Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Mega Team for Cognitive Rehabilitation in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) impacts executive functioning (EF). Evaluating the cost-utility of Mega Team (MT) as a cognitive training adjunct to treatment-as-usual (MT + TAU) versus TAU alone will guide policy and treatment choices. Children aged 6-12 with ADHD in Ontario were assigned to MT + TAU or TAU. Service utilization and costs were analyzed from public, family, and societal perspectives over six months. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated over six months by averaging health utilities from the Health Utilities Index. Incremental costs and QALYs were computed. Among 185 children (76.2% male, mean age 9.8), the incremental cost per child was -$205.1 from the public perspective, -$629.0 (95% CI -1,780.5, 1,089.5) from the family perspective, and -$808.6 (95% CI -2,178.4, 1,057.3) from the societal perspective. Incremental QALYs were 0.036 (95% CI 0.00868, 0.0620). As an adjunct to standard care, MT resulted in lower costs across all payers and greater QALYs per child.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".