US Valuation of the EQ-5D Health States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The EQ-5D is a brief, multiattribute, preference-based health status measure. This article describes the development of a statistical model for generating US population-based EQ-5D preference weights. METHODS: A multistage probability sample was selected from the US adult civilian noninstitutional population. Respondents valued 13 of 243 EQ-5D health states using the time trade-off (TTO) method. Data for 12 states were used in econometric modeling. The TTO valuations were linearly transformed to lie on the interval [-1, 1]. Methods were investigated to account for interaction effects caused by having problems in multiple EQ-5D dimensions. Several alternative model specifications (eg, pooled least squares, random effects) also were considered. A modified split-sample approach was used to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the models. All statistical analyses took into account the clustering and disproportionate selection probabilities inherent in our sampling design. RESULTS: Our D1 model for the EQ-5D included ordinal terms to capture the effect of departures from perfect health as well as interaction effects. A random effects specification of the D1 model yielded a good fit for the observed TTO data, with an overall R of 0.38, a mean absolute error of 0.025, and 7 prediction errors exceeding 0.05 in absolute magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: The D1 model best predicts the values for observed health states. The resulting preference weight estimates represent a significant enhancement of the EQ-5D's utility for health status assessment and economic analysis in the US.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".