MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Value of Information Analysis in Models to Inform Health Policy

2021· article· en· W3189184872 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Jackson, Gianluca Baio, Anna Heath, Mark Strong, Nicky J. Welton, Ed Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Statistics and Its Application · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsValue of informationComputer scienceData scienceSet (abstract data type)Range (aeronautics)Value (mathematics)Operations researchManagement scienceData miningMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Value of information (VoI) is a decision-theoretic approach to estimating the expected benefits from collecting further information of different kinds, in scientific problems based on combining one or more sources of data. VoI methods can assess the sensitivity of models to different sources of uncertainty and help to set priorities for further data collection. They have been widely applied in healthcare policy making, but the ideas are general to a range of evidence synthesis and decision problems. This article gives a broad overview of VoI methods, explaining the principles behind them, the range of problems that can be tackled with them, and how they can be implemented, and discusses the ongoing challenges in the area.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.130
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.130
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.299 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Statistics and Its ApplicationSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207