MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133027731

Molecular Subtyping to Stratify the Treatment of Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

2021· dissertation· W7133027731 on OpenAlexafffund
Diana Magee

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2021
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
FundersUniversity of TorontoCanadian Urological Oncology Group
KeywordsSubtypingCystectomyBladder cancerStandard of careChemotherapyGemcitabine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The standard treatment for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by radical cystectomy but response to NAC is unpredictable. Molecular subtypes allow for an improved ability to select a tailored treatment course. Our study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of molecular subtyping. Methods: A Markov microsimulation model was developed comparing three strategies: NAC at current usage rates, universal NAC usage, and molecular subtype-directed care. Primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: The predicted QALYs were 8.34, 8.73, and 9.14 with costs of $62,478, $76,962, and $62,579 for NAC at current usage rates, universal NAC usage, and subtype-directed care. When comparing subtype-directed care to current rates of NAC usage the ICER was $127/QALY. Conclusion: In patients with MIBC a subtype-directed approach to the administration of NAC can result in greater QALYs and be cost-effective.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→