The Impact of Ignoring Population Heterogeneity when Markov Models are Used in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
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
Many factors related to the spread and progression of diseases vary throughout a population. This heterogeneity is frequently ignored in cost-effectiveness analyses by using average or representative values or by considering multiple risk groups. The author explores the impact that such simplifying assumptions may have on the results and interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses when Markov models are used to calculate the costs and health impact of interventions. A discrete-time Markov model for a disease is defined, and 5 potential interventions are considered. Health benefits, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are calculated for each intervention. It is assumed that the population is heterogeneous with respect to the probability of becoming sick. Ignoring this heterogeneity may lead to optimistic or pessimistic estimates of cost-effectiveness ratios, depending on the intervention and, in some cases, the parameter values. Implications are discussed of this finding on the use of league tables and on comparisons of cost-effectiveness ratios versus commonly accepted threshold values.
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 | 0.038 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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