MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998482397 · doi:10.1017/s0266462303000485

WHO'S BETTER NOT BEST: APPROPRIATE PROBABILISTIC UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

2003· article· en· W1998482397 on OpenAlexaff
Doug Coyle

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicPopularityConstructiveCriticismEconomic analysisComputer scienceProbabilistic analysis of algorithmsRisk analysis (engineering)Uncertainty analysisInterpretation (philosophy)Term (time)Constructive criticismCost-effectiveness analysisManagement scienceEconometricsMathematicsMedicineArtificial intelligenceEconomicsPsychologyProcess (computing)Political scienceCost effectiveness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of probabilistic analysis as a means for analyzing uncertainty within economic analysis has grown in popularity in recent years as it has been recognized as the most complete method for propagating uncertainty with respect to input parameters in terms of uncertainty about outcomes of interest. The World Health Organization (WHO) in a series of recent reports and publications have recognized the role of probabilistic analysis in what they term generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. However, there are fundamental problems with the analysis and the interpretation of such analysis as proposed by WHO. This study highlights three specific points for concern and offers constructive criticism by recommending more appropriate approaches.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.140
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.140
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0110.020
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207