Systematic assessment of benefits and risks: study protocol for a multi-criteria decision analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for comparative effectiveness research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regulatory decision-making involves assessment of risks and benefits of medications at the time of approval or when relevant safety concerns arise with a medication. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) facilitates decision-making in complex situations involving tradeoffs by considering risks and benefits of alternatives. The AHP allows a more structured method of synthesizing and understanding evidence in the context of importance assigned to outcomes. Our objective is to evaluate the use of an AHP in a simulated committee setting selecting oral medications for type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This study protocol describes the AHP in five sequential steps using a small group of diabetes experts representing various clinical disciplines. The first step will involve defining the goal of the decision and developing the AHP model. In the next step, we will collect information about how well alternatives are expected to fulfill the decision criteria. In the third step, we will compare the ability of the alternatives to fulfill the criteria and judge the importance of eight criteria relative to the decision goal of the optimal medication choice for type 2 diabetes. We will use pairwise comparisons to sequentially compare the pairs of alternative options regarding their ability to fulfill the criteria. In the fourth step, the scales created in the third step will be combined to create a summary score indicating how well the alternatives met the decision goal. The resulting scores will be expressed as percentages and will indicate the alternative medications' relative abilities to fulfill the decision goal. The fifth step will consist of sensitivity analyses to explore the effects of changing the estimates. We will also conduct a cognitive interview and process evaluation. DISCUSSION: Multi-criteria decision analysis using the AHP will aid, support and enhance the ability of decision makers to make evidence-based informed decisions consistent with their values and preferences.
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 | 0.118 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.008 |
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".