MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198103700 · doi:10.1177/0272989x221121747

A Tutorial on Time-Dependent Cohort State-Transition Models in R Using a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Example

2022· preprint· en· W3198103700 on OpenAlexaff
Fernando Alarid‐Escudero, Eline Krijkamp, Eva A. Enns, Alan Yang, M. G. Myriam Hunink, Petros Pechlivanoglou, Hawre Jalal

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Decision Making · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteGordon and Betty Moore FoundationAmerican Diabetes Association
KeywordsDependency (UML)Computer scienceProbabilistic logicNotationTransition (genetics)Code (set theory)State (computer science)Residence time (fluid dynamics)AlgorithmProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an introductory tutorial, we illustrated building cohort state-transition models (cSTMs) in R, where the state transition probabilities were constant over time. However, in practice, many cSTMs require transitions, rewards, or both to vary over time (time dependent). This tutorial illustrates adding 2 types of time dependence using a previously published cost-effectiveness analysis of multiple strategies as an example. The first is simulation-time dependence, which allows for the transition probabilities to vary as a function of time as measured since the start of the simulation (e.g., varying probability of death as the cohort ages). The second is state-residence time dependence, allowing for history by tracking the time spent in any particular health state using tunnel states. We use these time-dependent cSTMs to conduct cost-effectiveness and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We also obtain various epidemiological outcomes of interest from the outputs generated from the cSTM, such as survival probability and disease prevalence, often used for model calibration and validation. We present the mathematical notation first, followed by the R code to execute the calculations. The full R code is provided in a public code repository for broader implementation.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.020

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 head0.390
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.095 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Decision MakingSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207