TWO‐LEVEL RESAMPLING AS A NOVEL METHOD FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE EXPECTED VALUE OF SAMPLE INFORMATION IN ECONOMIC TRIALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has already been pointed out that the bootstrap can be used to calculate the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) when individual-level data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is at hand. However, as mentioned by others, it is not clear if and how such a method can be extended to calculate the expected value of sample information (EVSI). In this article, we provide a nonparametric definition for EVPI and EVSI, which is based on considering the entire population distribution as the uncertain entity for which the current RCT provides partial information. This enables a theoretical justification for using the bootstrap for EVPI calculation and allows us to propose a two-level resampling method for EVSI calculation. What is considered as the sampling unit in this algorithm can range from the individual level net benefits to the full panel of the RCT data for an individual, enabling the analyst to decide on a trade-off between computational efficiency and comprehensiveness in value of information analysis. As such, we argue that this method, in addition to being consistent with the popular bootstrap method of RCT-based economic evaluations, is a flexible approach for EVPI and EVSI calculations.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".