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

<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.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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 teacher head, 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