MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Economic guidelines for oncology products: Adaptation of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) technology assessment guidance document

2009· article· en· W2199584453 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicole Mittmann, William K. Evans, A. Rocchi, Christopher J. Longo, H. Au, Don Husereau, Pierre K. Isogai, Murray Krahn, Doug Coyle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreJuravinski Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEconomic evaluationCLARITYOncologyHealth careEquity (law)PopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e17572 Background: Economic evaluations (EE) are routinely used by decision-makers in Canada. CADTH's “Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada” Third edition, 2006, provide guidance on the conduct of EEs for all therapeutic products. The consistency and quality of oncology EEs are variable and therapeutics in the cancer care environment presented unique challenges in decision making. Several chapters of the CADTH document adequately defined methods for the conduct of an oncology EE. However, some chapters required more specific guidance to improve the quality of oncology EEs. The goal was to provide direction on methods for the conduct of high quality EEs in oncology. Methods: The Working Group on Economic Analysis, NCIC CTG and CADTH jointly initiated this project and formed a working group (WG) of oncologists, health economists, decision makers and economic analysts. The WG identified CADTH chapters where oncology-specific guidance would be required. In-person and teleconference meetings provided content and structure for the document. Formal reviews by external academic experts, cancer agencies, patient groups and the pharmaceutical industry were conducted. Feedback was reviewed by the WG and incorporated as appropriate. Results: Chapters requiring guidance included: target population, comparators, perspective, effectiveness, modeling, type of evaluation, valuing health, time horizon, costs and resources, sensitivity analysis and equity. Guidance included clarity around CADTH methodology and recommendations for oncology products. For example for the effectiveness chapter, there was guidance around the use of intermediate outcomes (progression free survival vs. overall survival) and type of evidence (phase II vs. phase III). Overall recommendations for chapters will be presented. Conclusions: The oncology adapted economic guidelines provide specific guidance on the conduct of EEs for oncology products and will be published as an addendum to CADTH's third edition document. Their use should lead to more consistent application of EE methodologies for anti-cancer drugs and higher quality information for decision-makers at a national and perhaps international level. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.163
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.163
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0150.020
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0090.003
Research integrity0.0150.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.020

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.

Opus teacher head0.580
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.023 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207