Health State Preference Weights for the Glasgow Outcome Scale Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Mapping Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Valid and relevant estimates of health state preference weights (HSPWs) for Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) categories are a key input of economic models evaluating treatments for traumatic brain injury (TBI). OBJECTIVES: To characterize existing HSPW estimates, and model the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) from the GOS, to inform parameterization of future economic models. METHODS: A systematic review of HSPWs for GOS categories following TBI was conducted using a highly sensitive search strategy implemented in an extensive range of information sources between 1975 and 2016. A cross-sectional mapping study of GOS health states onto the three-level EQ-5D UK tariff index values was also performed in patients with significant TBI (head region Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥3) from the Victoria State Trauma Registry. A limited dependent variable mixture model was used to estimate the 12-month EQ-5D UK value set as a function of GOS category, age, and other explanatory variables. RESULTS: Six unique HSPWs from five eligible studies were identified. All studies were at high risk of bias with limited applicability. The magnitude of HSPWs differed significantly between studies. Three class mixture models demonstrated excellent goodness of fit to the observed Victoria State Trauma Registry data. GOS category, age at injury, sex, comorbidity, and major extracranial injury all had significant independent effects on mean EQ-5D utility values. CONCLUSIONS: The few available HSPWs for GOS categories are challenged by potential biases and restricted generalizability. Mixture models are presented to provide HSPWs for GOS categories consistent with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case.
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 | 0.098 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".