MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1992847035 · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2013-306573.186

IMPROVING THE MODEL FOR THE UK MS DISEASE MODIFYING TREATMENT RISK SHARING SCHEME ANALYSIS: A NEW NATURAL HISTORY DATASET

2013· article· en· W1992847035 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Jacqueline Palace, Thomas Bregenzer, Helen Tremlett, Martin Duddy, Mike Boggild, Feng Zhu, Joël Oger, Charles Dobson

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineImmunology and Microbiology
ThématiqueT-cell and Retrovirus Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCohortMedicineNatural historyExpanded Disability Status ScaleCovariateComputer scienceDemographyActuarial scienceStatisticsOperations researchInternal medicineMachine learningEngineeringMultiple sclerosisMathematics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Although in 2002 the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, in 2002, concluded that the disease modifying treatments (DMTs) for MS–interferon–b and glatiramer acetate–were not cost effective over the short–term, it was recognised that longer–term benefits were possible. The ‘UK risk sharing scheme’ was initiated in order to deliver these drug cost–effectively by monitoring a cohort of MS patients over a 10 year period after starting a DMT, and if necessary adjusting the cost to meet a 20 year target of £36,000 per Quality Adjusted Life Year. The first (2 year) analysis,<sup>1</sup> used a natural history dataset from London, Ontario, Canada as the comparator cohort to estimate the transition probabilities. However, the model proved too susceptible to change in the sensitivity analysis, mainly related to the artificial ‘smoothing’ of key disability–related (Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)) data which prevented scores from being recorded as improving. Thus the scientific advisory committee advised that an alternative data set should be sought where the actual EDSS scores were accessible. It was agreed that access to the dataset to allow validation of different models was important and that the original Discrete Markov model used would be compared to a Continuous Model to allow potential covariates and out of window EDSS scores to be used. <h3>Methods</h3> A review of MS databases was performed and the British Columbia MS, Canada (BCMS) dataset was considered the most suitable. A subgroup of patients who fulfilled the 2001 ABN criteria for eligibility for DMTs were selected to act as a ‘natural history‘ comparator for the UK cohort. Only EDSS scores prior to the availability of DMTs in BC were included (1980–1995). Discrete and continuous Markov models with and without baseline covariates (onset age, disease duration, MS severity scale, gender) were tested. Probabilities of changes in EDSS (i.e. transition probabilities) were used to predict disability (EDSS) at year 10, relative to baseline EDSS (taken at the first date the patients fulfilled the ABN eligibility criteria). The predicted EDSS was then compared to the actual outcome. Having identified the most accurate mathematical model from the entire eligible BCMS dataset, this was verified by using data from a randomly selected half of the cohort to predict the 10 year progress of the other half. <h3>Results</h3> 978 BCC patients were selected as suitable for the comparator data set and were similar in baseline characteristics to the UK RSS cohort: 74% were female, with mean; onset age 29.14 yrs, age at eligibility to receive DMTs 37.3 yrs, disease duration 8.16 yrs and a 2.85 relapses in the prior 2 years. The best model at predicting outcome was the continuous Markov model with age at onset as the single, binary covariate, split by the median (27.9 years). <h3>Conclusion</h3> The use of the BCMS dataset as a ‘natural history’ comparator cohort has allowed us to develop a more reliable model, to analyse the cost effectiveness of the DMTs in the UK risk sharing scheme. This BCMS dataset and model will be used in the price adjustment analysis for the 4 and 6 year results. We gratefully acknowledge the BC MS Clinic neurologists who contributed to the BCC data base, and to the UK neurologists, nurses and administrational staff who have been key in collecting the RSS data.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,279
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,734

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,239
Écart entre enseignants0,213 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatryMême sujetT-cell and Retrovirus StudiesTravaux en français237 207