A Bayesian Approach to Net Health Benefits: An Illustration and Application to Modeling HIV Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of HIV prevention when costs and effects cannot be measured directly. To quantify the total estimation of uncertainty due to sampling variability as well as inexact knowledge of HIV transmission parameters. METHODS: The authors focus on estimating the incremental net health benefit (INHB) in a randomized trial of HIV prevention with intervention and control conditions. Using a Bernoulli model of HIV transmission, changes in the participants' risk behaviors are converted into the number of HIV infections averted. A sampling model is used to account for variation in the behavior measurements. Bayes's theorem and Monte Carlo methods are used to attain the stated objectives. RESULTS: The authors obtained a positive mean INHB of 0.0008, indicating that advocacy training is just slightly favored over the control condition for men, assuming a $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold. To be confident of a positive INHB, the decision maker would need to spend more than $100,000 per QALY.
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 | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".