Cost-Effectiveness and Heterogeneity: Using Finite Mixtures of Disease Activity Models to Identify and Analyze Phenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heterogeneity in patient populations is an important issue in health economic evaluations, as the cost-effectiveness of an intervention can vary between patient subgroups, and an intervention which is not cost-effective in the overall population may be cost-effective in particular subgroups. Identifying such subgroups is of interest in the allocation of healthcare resources. Our aim was to develop a method for cost-effectiveness analysis in heterogeneous chronic diseases, by identifying subgroups (phenotypes) directly relevant to the cost-effectiveness of an intervention, and by enabling cost-effectiveness analyses of the intervention in each of these phenotypes. We identified phenotypes based on healthcare resource utilization, using finite mixtures of underlying disease activity models: first, an explicit disease activity model, and secondly, a model of aggregated disease activity. They differed with regards to time-dependence, level of detail, and what interventions they could evaluate. We used them for cost-effectiveness analyses of two hypothetical interventions. Allowing for different phenotypes improved model fit, and was a key step towards dealing with heterogeneity. The cost-effectiveness of the interventions varied substantially between phenotypes. Using underlying disease activity models for identifying phenotypes as well as cost-effectiveness analysis appears both feasible and useful in that they guide the decision to introduce an intervention.
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 | 0.031 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".