Minimization of resource utilization data collected within cost-effectiveness analyses conducted alongside Canadian Cancer Trials Group phase III trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analyses embedded within randomized trials allow for evaluation of value alongside conventional efficacy outcomes; however, collection of resource utilization data can require considerable trial resources. METHODS: We re-analyzed the results from four phase III Canadian Cancer Trials Group trials that embedded cost-effectiveness analyses to determine the impact of minimizing potential cost categories on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. For each trial, we disaggregated total costs into component incremental cost categories and recalculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using (1) only the top 3 cost categories, (2) the top 5 cost categories, and (3) all cost components. Using individual trial-level data, confidence intervals for each incremental cost-effectiveness ratio simulation were generated by bootstrapping and descriptively presented with the original confidence intervals (and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) from the publications. RESULTS: Drug acquisition costs represented the highest incremental cost category in three trials, while hospitalization costs represented the other consistent cost driver and the top incremental cost category in the fourth trial. Recalculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on fewer cost components (top 3 and top 5) did not differ meaningfully from the original published results. Based on conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds (US$50,000-US$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year), none of the re-analyses would have changed the original perception of whether the experimental therapies were considered cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the collection of resource utilization data within cancer trials could be narrowed. Omission of certain cost categories that have minimal impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, such as routine laboratory investigations, could reduce the costs and undue burden associated with the collection of data required for cancer trial cost-effectiveness analyses.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | low |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.293 | 0.571 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".