Accounting for Methodological, Structural, and Parameter Uncertainty in Decision-Analytic Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Accounting for uncertainty is now a standard part of decision-analytic modeling and is recommended by many health technology agencies and published guidelines. However, the scope of such analyses is often limited, even though techniques have been developed for presenting the effects of methodological, structural, and parameter uncertainty on model results. To help bring these techniques into mainstream use, the authors present a step-by-step guide that offers an integrated approach to account for different kinds of uncertainty in the same model, along with a checklist for assessing the way in which uncertainty has been incorporated. The guide also addresses special situations such as when a source of uncertainty is difficult to parameterize, resources are limited for an ideal exploration of uncertainty, or evidence to inform the model is not available or not reliable. METHODS: for identifying the sources of uncertainty that influence results most are also described. Besides guiding analysts, the guide and checklist may be useful to decision makers who need to assess how well uncertainty has been accounted for in a decision-analytic model before using the results to make a decision.
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 | 0.130 | 0.314 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".