A methodological comparison of mapping algorithms to obtain health utilities derived using cross-sectional and longitudinal data: Secondary analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
55 Background: To compare the predictive ability of health utility mapping algorithms derived using cross-sectional and longitudinal data specific to the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC). Methods: This mapping study utilized data from an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of patients with low-risk prostate cancer conducted by NRG Oncology (NCT00331773). Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected using EPIC, and health utilities were obtained using EuroQOL-5D (EQ5D) at baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months post-intervention. Data were split into an estimation sample (70%) and a validation sample (30%). Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models were estimated using baseline cross-sectional data as well as pooled data from all assessment periods. Random effects (RE) specifications that explicitly model the longitudinal nature of the data were also estimated. Candidate models were selected based on root mean square error (RMSE). Results: A total of 196 (147) patients in the estimation sample had complete EQ5D and EPIC domain (subdomain) data at all time points. OLS models using combined data outperformed the counter-part RE models as well as OLS models using baseline data in the five-fold cross-validation. Addition of covariates to the models resulted in improved predictive ability. In the external validation, when only EPIC domain/ subdomain data are available, the OLS model using combined data predicted EQ5D utilities better than the counterpart RE model and OLS model using baseline data (RMSE=0.121108 & 0.111345). OLS model using baseline data outperformed other model types for algorithms with EPIC domains and demographics (RMSE=0.121757), while RE models outperformed the other two model types for algorithms with EPIC subdomains and demographic data, (0.112782) and for algorithms with EPIC domains/ subdomains, demographics, and clinical covariates (RMSE=0.123589 & 0.163093). Conclusions: While algorithms using pooled data outperformed other model types in internal validation, RE models showed better predictive ability in external validation for algorithms with covariates. Clinical trial information: NCT00331773.
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 | 0.229 | 0.345 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".