MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613930366 · doi:10.1080/14737167.2017.1330152

Recent amendments to NICE’s value-based assessment of health technologies: implicitly inequitable?

2017· editorial· en· W2613930366 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Paulden

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · 2017
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNiceValue (mathematics)Health technologyMedicinePublic economicsPolitical scienceEnvironmental economicsEconomicsComputer scienceEconomic growthHealth careMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over recent years, the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has implemented or proposed several amendments to its methods and processes for the economic evaluation of healt...

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.247
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.247
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0310.047
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.368
GPT teacher head0.672
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations83
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes ResearchSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207