Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: With application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the disease screening, process reengineering occurred simultaneously. Whether process reengineering deserves special emphasis in AI implementation in the community-based blinding fundus diseases screening is not clear.
Method: Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were performed employing decision-analytic Markov models. A hypothetical cohort of community residents was followed in the model over a period of 30 1-year Markov cycles, starting from the age of 60. The simulated cohort was based on work data of the Shanghai Digital Eye Disease Screening program (SDEDS). Three scenarios were compared: centralized screening with manual grading-based telemedicine systems (Scenario 1), centralized screening with an AI-assisted screening system (Scenario 2), and process reengineered screening with an AI-assisted screening system (Scenario 3). The main outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR).
Results: Compared with Scenario 1, Scenario 2 results in incremental 187.03 years of blindness avoided and incremental 106.78 QALYs at an additional cost of $ 490010.62 per 10,000 people screened, with an ICER of $2619.98 per year of blindness avoided and an ICUR of $4589.13 per QALY. Compared with Scenario 1, Scenario 3 results in incremental 187.03 years of blindness avoided and incremental 106.78 QALYs at an additional cost of $242313.23 per 10,000 people screened, with an ICER of $1295.60 per year of blindness avoided and an ICUR of $2269.35 per QALY. Although Scenario 2 and 3 could be considered cost-effective, the screening cost of Scenario 3 was 27.6 % and the total cost was 1.1 % lower, with the same expected effectiveness and utility. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses show that Scenario 3 dominated 69.1 % and 70.3 % of simulations under one and three times the local GDP per capita thresholds.
Conclusions: AI can improve the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of screenings, especially when process reengineering is performed. Therefore, process reengineering is strongly recommended when AI is implemented.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.109329 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!