Semi‐parametric regression models for cost‐effectiveness analysis: improving the efficiency of estimation from censored data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a cost-effectiveness analysis using clinical trial data, estimates of the between-treatment difference in mean cost and mean effectiveness are needed. Several methods for handling censored data have been suggested. One of them is inverse-probability weighting, and has the advantage that it can also be applied to estimate the parameters from a linear regression of the mean. Such regression models can potentially estimate the treatment contrast more precisely, since some of the residual variance can be explained by baseline covariates. The drawback, however, is that inverse-probability weighting may not be efficient. Using existing results on semi-parametric efficiency, this paper derives the semi-parametric efficient parameter estimates for regression of mean cost, mean quality-adjusted survival time and mean survival time. The performance of these estimates is evaluated through a simulation study. Applying both the new estimators and the inverse-probability weighted estimators to the results of the EVALUATE trial showed that the new estimators achieved a halving of the variance of the estimated treatment contrast for cost. Some practical suggestions for choosing an estimator are offered.
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 | 0.058 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".