The Need for Evolution in Healthcare Decision Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Many healthcare decisions are difficult because they are complex and have important consequences such as the impact on survival or quality-of-life of individuals and on allocation of limited resources. The present state-of-the-art in healthcare decision modeling is often inadequate to properly assess these decisions. METHODS: Based on a literature search and the experience of the authors, typical methodologies used in healthcare decision analysis modeling are explored and compared with methods used in other practices. An example of hormonal therapy decisions is used. RESULTS: Useful methods that have been developed in other fields are presented. These include methods targeted toward appropriate assessment and representation of the complexity of decisions, assessment of uncertainty, use of nonexpected value decision analysis, and use of multi-attribute decision criteria. CONCLUSION: The state-of-the-art in healthcare decision modeling can be improved through learning from other practices.
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 | 0.021 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".