Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The results of the HOPE study, a randomized clinical trial, provide strong evidence that 1) ramipril prevents the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke in patients who are at high risk of a cardiovascular event and 2) ramipril is cost-effective at a threshold willingness-to-pay of $10,000 to prevent an event of the composite outcome. In this report the concept of the expected value of information is used to determine if the information provided by the HOPE study is sufficient for decision making in the US and Canada. METHODS: and results Using the cost-effectiveness data from a clinical trial, or from a meta-analysis of several trials, one can determine, based on the number of future patients that would benefit from the health technology under investigation, the expected value of sample information (EVSI) of a future trial as a function of proposed sample size. If the EVSI exceeds the cost for any particular sample size then the current information is insufficient for decision making and a future trial is indicated. If, on the other hand, there is no sample size for which the EVSI exceeds the cost, then there is sufficient information for decision making and no future trial is required. Using the data from the HOPE study these concepts are applied for various assumptions regarding the fixed and variable cost of a future trial and the number of patients who would benefit from ramipril. CONCLUSIONS: Expected value of information methods provide a decision-analytic alternative to the standard likelihood methods for assessing the evidence provided by cost-effectiveness data from randomized clinical trials.
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 | 0.160 | 0.505 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".