Using stated preference and revealed preference modeling to evaluate prescribing decisions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of stated preference analyses to evaluate choice of health care products has been growing in recent years. This paper shows how revealed preference data can be enriched with stated preference data and highlights the relative advantages of revealed and stated preference data. The techniques were applied to a study of determinants of physicians' prescriptions of alcoholism medications. Analyses were conducted on the relationship between physicians' perceptions of existing alcoholism medication attributes and their prescribing rates of those medications. Analyses were also conducted on physicians' decisions to prescribe hypothetical alcoholism medications with varying attributes such as efficacy, side effects, compliance, mode of action, and price. Finally, analyses were conducted on the combined stated and revealed preference data. Joint estimation suggests that parameters from the revealed and stated preference data are equal, up to scale. Joint analyses highlight how stated preference data can be used to estimate parameters for attributes that are not observed in the marketplace, that do not vary in the marketplace, or that are highly collinear with other attributes in actual markets.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it