MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999942009 · doi:10.1177/0272989x19896567

Exploring the Benefits of Transformations in Health Utility Mapping

2020· article· en· W2999942009 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Mitsakakis, Karen E. Bremner, George Tomlinson, Murray Krahn

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Decision Making · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Public HealthToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkewnessEconometricsStatisticsEstimatorComputer scienceKurtosisTransformation (genetics)Sample size determinationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Quality-of-life research and cost-effectiveness analyses frequently require data on health utility, a global measure of health-related quality of life. When utilities are unavailable, researchers have “mapped” descriptive instruments to utility instruments, using samples of responses to both instruments. Health utilities have an idiosyncratic distribution, with upper bound and probability mass at 1, left skewness, and kurtosis. Estimation of mean utility values conditional on covariates is of interest, particularly in health utility mapping applications. Traditional linear regression may be unsuitable because fundamental assumptions are violated. Complex statistical methods come with deficiencies that may outweigh their benefits. Aim. To investigate the benefits of transforming the health utility response variable before fitting a linear regression model. Methods. We compared log, logit, arcsin, and Box-Cox transformations with an untransformed model, using several measures of model accuracy. We made our evaluation by designing and conducting a simulation study and reanalyzing data from 2 published studies, which “mapped” a psychometric descriptive instrument to a utility instrument. Results. In the simulation study, log transformation with smearing estimator had in most cases the lowest bias but one of the highest variances, especially for estimating low utility values under small sample size. The untransformed model was outperformed by the transformed models. Findings were inconclusive for the analysis of real data, where arcsin gave the lowest error for one of the data sets, while the untransformed model had the best performance for the other. Conclusions. We identified the benefits of transformations and offered suggestions for future modeling of health utilities. However, the benefits were moderate and no single transformation appeared to be universally optimal, suggesting that selection requires examination on a case-by-case basis.

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)0.108
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.446
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1080.446
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.704
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Decision MakingSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207