Appropriate Evidence Sources for Populating Decision Analytic Models within Health Technology Assessment (HTA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of evidence sources are relevant for populating decision analytic models. What is needed is detailed methodological advice on which type of data is to be used for what type of model parameter. PURPOSE: We aim to identify standards in health technology assessment manuals and economic (modeling) guidelines on appropriate evidence sources and on the role different types of data play within a model. METHODS: Documents were identified via a call among members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment and by hand search. We included documents from Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as well as transnational guidelines written in English or German. We systematically summarized in a narrative manner information on appropriate evidence sources for model parameters, their advantages and limitations, data identification methods, and data quality issues. RESULTS: A large variety of evidence sources for populating models are mentioned in the 28 documents included. They comprise research- and non-research-based sources. Valid and less appropriate sources are identified for informing different types of model parameters, such as clinical effect size, natural history of disease, resource use, unit costs, and health state utility values. Guidelines do not provide structured and detailed advice on this issue. LIMITATIONS: The article does not include information from guidelines in languages other than English or German, and the information is not tailored to specific modeling techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The usability of guidelines and manuals for modeling could be improved by addressing the issue of evidence sources in a more structured and comprehensive format.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.060 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".