MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jacqueline Palace, Thomas Bregenzer, Helen Tremlett, Martin Duddy, Mike Boggild, Feng Zhu, Joël Oger, Charles Dobson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and Retrovirus Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortMedicineNatural historyExpanded Disability Status ScaleCovariateComputer scienceDemographyActuarial scienceStatisticsOperations researchInternal medicineMachine learningEngineeringMultiple sclerosisMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background 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,1 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. Methods 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. Results 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). Conclusion 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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicT-cell and Retrovirus StudiesFrench-language works237,207