Bibliographic record
Abstract
The creation of multiattribute health utility systems requires design choices that have profound effects on the utility model, many of which have been documented and studied in the literature. Here we describe one design choice that has, to the best of our knowledge, been unrecognized and therefore ignored. It can emerge in any multiattribute decision analysis in which one or more essential outcomes cannot be described in terms of the multiattribute space. In health applications, the state of being dead is such an outcome. When the remaining health is conceptualized as a multidimensional space, determining the utility of the state of being dead requires using the interval-scale properties of cardinal utility, combined with elicited utilities for the state of being dead and the all-worst state, to produce a utility function in which the state of being dead has a utility of 0 and full health has a utility of 1 (i.e., the quality-adjusted life-year scale). Although previously unrecognized, there are two approaches to accomplish that step, and they produce different results in almost all cases. As a corollary, the choice of approach determines the proportion of states rated as worse than dead by the system. For example, in the Health Utility Index 3 (HUI3), the method used classifies 78% of the 972,000 unique health states in the classification system as worse than dead, and that proportion increases to 85% when the HUI3 is recalculated using the alternative approach. Studies of populations with significant morbidity are the most likely to be sensitive to the design choice. Those who design utility measures should be aware that they are using a researcher degree of freedom when they decide how to scale the state of being dead.
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 | 0.027 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".