Linked Sensitivity Analysis, Calibration, and Uncertainty Analysis Using a System Dynamics Model for Stroke Comparative Effectiveness Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As health services researchers and decision makers tackle more difficult problems using simulation models, the number of parameters and the corresponding degree of uncertainty have increased. This often results in reduced confidence in such complex models to guide decision making. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a systematic approach of linked sensitivity analysis, calibration, and uncertainty analysis to improve confidence in complex models. METHODS: Four techniques were integrated and applied to a System Dynamics stroke model of US veterans, which was developed to inform systemwide intervention and research planning: Morris method (sensitivity analysis), multistart Powell hill-climbing algorithm and generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (calibration), and Monte Carlo simulation (uncertainty analysis). RESULTS: Of 60 uncertain parameters, sensitivity analysis identified 29 needing calibration, 7 that did not need calibration but significantly influenced key stroke outcomes, and 24 not influential to calibration or stroke outcomes that were fixed at their best guess values. One thousand alternative well-calibrated baselines were obtained to reflect calibration uncertainty and brought into uncertainty analysis. The initial stroke incidence rate among veterans was identified as the most influential uncertain parameter, for which further data should be collected. That said, accounting for current uncertainty, the analysis of 15 distinct prevention and treatment interventions provided a robust conclusion that hypertension control for all veterans would yield the largest gain in quality-adjusted life years. CONCLUSIONS: For complex health care models, a mixed approach was applied to examine the uncertainty surrounding key stroke outcomes and the robustness of conclusions. We demonstrate that this rigorous approach can be practical and advocate for such analysis to promote understanding of the limits of certainty in applying models to current decisions and to guide future data collection.
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 | 0.076 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".