OMERACT 6 Economics Working Group report: a proposal for a reference case for economic evaluation in rheumatoid arthritis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standardization of methods for economic evaluation is essential for defining the methodological research agenda that will advance the discipline. Standardization also greatly facilitates the interpretation and comparison of the results of economic analyses. For these reasons, several jurisdictions now require economic evaluation, conducted according to standardized methodological guidelines, as a key ingredient in decision making for reimbursement of health treatments and technologies. The application of these general guidelines, however, can be difficult in the absence of disease-specific information. In the case of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the recent emergence of innovative, highly effective, but also expensive treatments has created an immediate need to more fully understand the economic implications of RA treatments. With this background, the OMERACT Economics Working Group set out in 1994 to develop an RA-specific reference case for economic evaluation. This report summarizes the OMERACT process leading to specific recommendations on the 12 key elements of a proposed "reference case" for economic evaluation in RA. These elements include: study horizon, duration of therapy, extrapolation beyond trial duration, modeling beyond therapy, synthesis of comparisons where head-to-head trials do not exist, clinical outcome measures, mortality, valuation of health states, resource utilization, discontinuation of therapy, therapeutic sequence, and population risk stratification. Through these efforts, the OMERACT Economics Working Group aims to expedite and enhance the conduct and dissemination of methodological research in economic analyses in the rheumatic diseases.
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 | 0.245 | 0.295 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.043 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
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".