Cost‐effectiveness models for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: IPECAD modeling workshop cross‐comparison challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The credibility of model-based economic evaluations of Alzheimer's disease (AD) interventions is central to appropriate decision-making in a policy context. We report on the International PharmacoEconomic Collaboration on Alzheimer's Disease (IPECAD) Modeling Workshop Challenge. METHODS: Two common benchmark scenarios, for the hypothetical treatment of AD mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild dementia, were developed jointly by 29 participants. Model outcomes were summarized, and cross-comparisons were discussed during a structured workshop. RESULTS: A broad concordance was established among participants. Mean 10-year restricted survival and time in MCI in the control group ranged across 10 MCI models from 6.7 to 9.5 years and 3.4 to 5.6 years, respectively; and across 4 mild dementia models from 5.4 to 7.9 years (survival) and 1.5 to 4.2 years (mild dementia). DISCUSSION: The model comparison increased our understanding of methods, data used, and disease progression. We established a collaboration framework to assess cost-effectiveness outcomes, an important step toward transparent and credible AD models.
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 | 0.302 | 0.338 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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, 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".