A Guide to Selecting Flexible Survival Models to Inform Economic Evaluations of Cancer Immunotherapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Parametric models are routinely used to estimate the benefit of cancer drugs beyond trial follow-up. The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors has challenged this paradigm, and emerging evidence suggests that more flexible survival models, which can better capture the shapes of complex hazard functions, might be needed for these interventions. Nevertheless, there is a need for an algorithm to help analysts decide whether flexible models are required and, if so, which should be chosen for testing. This position article has been produced to bridge this gap. METHODS: A virtual advisory board comprising 7 international experts with in-depth knowledge of survival analysis and health technology assessment was held in summer 2021. The experts discussed 24 questions across 6 topics: the current survival model selection procedure, data maturity, heterogeneity of treatment effect, cure and mortality, external evidence, and additions to existing guidelines. Their responses culminated in an algorithm to inform selection of flexible survival models. RESULTS: The algorithm consists of 8 steps and 4 questions. Key elements include the systematic identification of relevant external data, using clinical expert input at multiple points in the selection process, considering the future and the observed hazard functions, assessing the potential for long-term survivorship, and presenting results from all plausible models. CONCLUSIONS: This algorithm provides a systematic, evidence-based approach to justify the selection of survival extrapolation models for cancer immunotherapies. If followed, it should reduce the risk of selecting inappropriate models, partially addressing a key area of uncertainty in the economic evaluation of these agents.
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 | 0.026 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.018 |
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".