Design and sample size considerations for valuation studies of multi‐attribute utility instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The EQ-5D, a widely used multiattribute utility instrument, is commonly used in health economic evaluations where the goal is to decide on which treatments to reimburse. Like other instruments, value sets of the EQ-5D are constructed using valuation studies typically valuing a subset of the health states and using predicted values from a regression model for the unvalued health states. In current practice the prediction errors associated with the value sets are substantial. The goal of this work is 2-fold. First, derive a formula of the mean squared error (MSE) of a value set assuming that the value set is estimated using a linear mixed model with either an independent or a Gaussian spatial correlation on the model misspecification error. Second, explore the effect of the number of health states directly valued, the number of participants and the correlation structure on the MSE. Keeping the total number of participants and the total number of valuations fixed, valuing all 242 health states of the EQ-5D-3L was found to reduce the MSE considerably compared with the common practice of valuing only 42 health states. Furthermore, an independent correlation structure with 3773 participants valuing 42 health states produced the MSE that can be achieved with less than 600 participants valuing all 242 health states under a Gaussian spatial correlation structure. Based on the comparison of the MSE values of some of the well-known designs our suggestion is to value more health states and to use a model with spatially correlated misspecification errors.
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 | 0.288 | 0.458 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".