Estimating an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate a five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) value set for China using the health preferences of residents living in the urban areas of the country. METHODS: The values of a subset of the EQ-5D-5L-defined health states (n = 86) were elicited using the time trade-off (TTO) technique from a sample of urban residents (n = 1271) recruited from five Chinese cities. In computer-assisted personal interviews, participants each completed 10 TTO tasks. Two additive and two multiplicative regression models were evaluated for their performance in describing the relationship between TTO values and health state characteristics using a cross-validation approach. Final values were generated using the best-performed model and a rescaling method. RESULTS: The 8- and 9-parameter multiplicative models unanimously outperformed the 20-parameter additive model using a random or fixed intercept in predicting values for out-of-sample health states in the cross-validation analysis and their coefficients were estimated with lower standard errors. The prediction accuracies of the two multiplicative models measured by the mean absolute error and the intraclass correlation coefficient were very similar, thus favoring the more parsimonious model. CONCLUSIONS: The 8-parameter multiplicative model performed the best in the study and therefore was used to generate the EQ-5D-5L value set for China. We recommend using rescaled values whereby 1 represents the value of instrument-defined full health in economic evaluation of health technologies in China whenever the EQ-5D-5L data are available.
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.
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 | 0.034 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it