Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional approaches to cost-effectiveness analysis have not considered the downstream possibility of a new standard of care coming out of the research and development pipeline. However, the treatment landscape for patients may change significantly over the course of their lifetimes. OBJECTIVE: To present a Markov modeling framework that incorporates the possibility of treatment evolution into the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that compares treatments available at the present time. DESIGN: . Markov model evaluated by matrix algebra. Measurements. The author evaluates the difference between the new and traditional ICER calculations for patients with chronic diseases facing a lifetime of treatment. RESULTS: The bias of the traditional ICER calculation may be substantial, with further testing revealing that it may be either positive or negative depending on the model parameters. The author also performs probabilistic sensitivity analyses with respect to the possible timing of a new treatment discovery and notes the increase in the magnitude of the bias when the new treatment is likely to appear sooner rather than later. Limitations. The modeling framework is intended as a proof of concept and therefore makes simplifying assumptions such as time stationarity of model parameters and consideration of a single new drug discovery. CONCLUSIONS: For diseases with a more active research and development pipeline, the possibility of a new treatment paradigm may be at least as important to consider in sensitivity analysis as other parameters that are often considered.
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 | 0.043 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".