ライフサイエンスコーパス: discount rate

1 he health-care sector perspective, 3% annual discount rate).

2 perspective; 20-year time horizon; 3% annual discount rate).

3 remental cost-effectiveness ratio (3% annual discount rate).

4 se assuming early retirement ages and higher discount rates).

5 etriments, the anticipated shift in HAZ, and discount rate.

6 h-care system's perspective with a 3% annual discount rate.

7 ing to examine uncertainty, and applied a 3% discount rate.

8 ty payer perspective and applied a 3% annual discount rate.

9 ealth care sector perspective, assuming a 3% discount rate.

10 6, depending on preschool enrolment rate and discount rate.

11 vesting over time, employing a constant time discount rate.

12 uality adjustment due to gastric cancer, and discount rate.

13 em-climate sensitivity, climate damages, and discount rate.

14 d to healthcare costs, and using a 3% annual discount rate.

15 ents with newly diagnosed cancer, and to the discount rate.

16 atio of injuries to fatalities, and the real discount rate.

17 djusted to 2020 US dollars using a 3% annual discount rate.

18 policy planning time horizon at a 3% annual discount rate.

19 f treating males, DT treatment cost, and the discount rate.

20 to reduce the delay to a reward and lowering discount rates.

21 h the parties are expected to have different discount rates.

22 the striatum and an age-related decrease in discount rates.

23 0.50-$5.50/Mcf across the range of potential discount rates.

24 valued between -US$3 and -US$1, depending on discount rates.

25 mplete characterization of damages, and high discount rates.

26 elected to purchase the Health Compass at a discounted rate.

27 d the larger/later option, reducing measured discounting rates.

28 e had a total of 3 QALYs per patient with no discount rate and 2.30 QALYs discounted.

29 dose MMR schedule with an assumption of a 3% discount rate and measles eradication in 2010.

30 s would result from option 3, by use of a 5% discount rate and the assumption that measles eradicatio

31 ocial cost of carbon (SCC) under alternative discount rates and estimates of the GIS dynamics.

32 ICURs were most sensitive to discount rates and MMRV price.

33 the DDT, exponential discounting rate and randomness were improved during ano

34 justed life-year (DALY) averted, a 3% annual discount rate, and a 50-year time horizon.

35 ear and 50-year periods from 2026, used a 3% discount rate, and a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$

36 We used a 20 year time horizon, a 3% discount rate, and a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$

37 20-year period from 2019 to 2039, used a 3% discount rate, and a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$

38 we controlled for the reference price, price discount rate, and brand-specific effects, the sales upl

39 antiviral therapy, the cost of therapy, the discount rate, and the QALY losses assigned to disease s

40 e assumed a nine-year analytic horizon, a 3% discount rate, and zero screening costs.

41 ying the penetrance, mortality rates, costs, discount rates, and preferences had minimal effects on o

42 ritical uncertainties, as well as a range of discount rates, and should explicitly characterize uncer

43 d-the results are therefore sensitive to the discount rate applied, and more generally to the future

44 babilities, rates, utilities, costs, and the discount rate are simultaneously varied to extreme value

45 This study uses the discount rate as a proxy for these perceptions and decis

46 treatment of nonindustrial greenhouse gases, discount rates, as well as updates on all the major comp

47 that combines a survey-based measure of time discount rates (at age 13) with detailed longitudinal re

48 layed over earlier rewards (i.e., less steep discount rates) compared with HC; after weight restorati

49 his paper examines harvesting plans when the discount rate declines over time.

50 me time horizon, US societal perspective, 3% discount rate for costs, and health outcomes.

51 sis that an important factor influencing the discount rate for future rewards is the quality with whi

52 We use a 3% discount rate for investment costs and a 1-year time hor

53 magination are significantly correlated with discounting rates for future monetary payments.

54 sulted in attenuated loss aversion and lower discounting rates for these rewards.

55 erval: 4.7-54) trillion realized to 2050 (3% discount rate) for the current policy scenario.

56 impulsivity, as reflected in monetary delay discounting rates, for those with high VS-low amygdala r

57 to the limit of the discounted values as the discount rate goes to 0.

58 on studies show that accumulation, and small discounting rates (high future value) can both promote c

59 Cost-utility analysis with 3% discount rate in 2018 US dollars.

60 ve of the utility, which uses a market-based discount rate in these calculations.

61 The ICER was most sensitive to discount rate, incidence of HPV infection, vaccine price

62 d ROI necessarily make assumptions about the discount rate, income tax rates, and predictions of inte

63 We argue that the choice of discount rate is an ethical primitive: there are many di

64 s stock levels in the early stages (when the discount rate is high) and intends to compensate by allo

65 hree times GDPpc, (iii) 14%-19% lower if the discount rate is increased to 6%, and (iv) 36% (95% CI 2

66 pproach in which a diverse set of individual discount rates is aggregated into a "representative" rat

67 A discount rate of 0.03, time horizon of 2010-2050, and a

68 e, 2020 US dollars) at a near-term risk-free discount rate of 2%, a value 3.6 times higher than the U

69 to a decision analytic model, with an annual discount rate of 3% applied.

70 threshold of US$500 per DALY averted, and a discount rate of 3% per year.

71 isability-adjusted life years averted, and a discount rate of 3% per year.

72 We used a discount rate of 3% to adjust all costs and DALYs to pre

73 A discount rate of 3% was used.

74 adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, an annual discount rate of 3%, and a time horizon of 50 years.

75 ctiveness ratios per life-year saved, with a discount rate of 3%, are $20,717, $29,970, $72,780, and

76 tic product per capita (GDPpc) and an annual discount rate of 3%.

77 all survival, and costs to 15 years, using a discount rate of 3%.

78 rspective, with a 15-year time horizon and a discount rate of 3%.

79 erspective with a 15-year time horizon and a discount rate of 3%.

80 to be pound19 252 (95% CI 7622-59 200) at a discount rate of 3.5%.

81 VMMC at age 20 are estimated at US$617 at a discount rate of 5% and are lower for circumcisions both

82 veness threshold of $100 per DALY averted, a discount rate of 7% per annum, the use of PrEP outside o

83 how humans adjust SAT depending on the time discount rate of expected gain.

84 tention, we provide estimates of the implied discount rate of time and the elasticity of attention to

85 High learning and low discount rates of the reinforcement learning model are s

86 lifetime horizon, 1-year cycle length, and a discounted rate of 3% per year for both costs and outcom

87 Temporal discounting rates of monetary reward were lower overall

88 ical costs (in 1994 dollars, using a 3% real discount rate), of which $1.1 billion (49%) was paid by

89 cost-effectiveness threshold, a 7% per year discount rate, or with PrEP use that was less well risk-

90 herapeutic target for individuals whose high discount rates promote detrimental behaviors.

91 determinants of cost-effectiveness were the discount rate, protective effectiveness, baseline neonat

92 gation efficiently leads to a time-dependent discount rate that declines monotonically to the lowest

93 is, over a lifetime horizon with a 3% annual discount rate, the base-case model estimated additional

94 uncertainties surrounding flood hazards, the discount rate, the house lifetime, and the fragility can

95 With a declining discount rate, the planner reduces stock levels in the e

96 th variable delay times, yielding individual discount rates-the rate by which money loses value over

97 Disagreements about the value of the utility discount rate--the rate at which our concern for the wel

98 ld to three times GDPpc, (iv) increasing the discount rate to 6%, and (v) accounting for the proporti

99 and upper estimates, including adjusting the discount rate to 8% and 3% per year, respectively.

100 ned was $22 and $20, respectively, with a 3% discount rate to costs.

101 cognitive development score gained with a 3% discount rate to costs.

102 ted life-year gained, we applied a 3% annual discounting rate to costs and effects and performed 1-wa

103 Climate Economy (DICE) model, spanning three discount rates, two damage functions, and three climate

104 t had a relevant impact on ICER included the discount rate, visual acuity before CXL, and healthcare

105 A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benef

106 The ICER was somewhat higher if the discount rate was set at either 0 or 0.06.

107 zon with a cycle length of 1 month with a 3% discount rate was used.

108 The full life time cost per patient, with no discount rate, was pound65,310 (95% CI pound64,981- poun

109 ed States 2022 real dollars, and a 3% annual discount rate were employed.

110 oviral therapy, quality-of-life weights, and discount rate were varied.

111 Discounting rates were inversely correlated with neural

112 itive to SLB cost, lifetime, efficiency, and discount rate, whereas the GWP and CED were affected by

113 iour suggests that we have evolved to employ discount rates which fall over time, often referred to a

114 g the stock level to recover later (when the discount rate will be lower).

115 and human work, l-DOPA reliably reduced the discount rate with a small effect size, challenging earl

116 vity reflects interindividual differences in discounting rates, with stronger representation observed

117 .95 or higher test-retest reliability of the discounting rate within 10-20 trials (under 1-2 min of t

118 Seemingly small differences in the discount rate yield very different policy prescriptions,