MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377245849 · doi:10.1080/14737167.2023.2215430

Mapping the schizophrenia quality of life scale to EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D utility scores in patients with schizophrenia

2023· article· en· W4377245849 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Esmond Seow, Jue Hua Lau, Edimansyah Abdin, Swapna Verma, Kelvin Bryan Tan, Mythily Subramaniam

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilMinistry of Health, British Columbia
KeywordsEQ-5DStatisticsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Tobit modelOrdinary least squaresGoodness of fitEconometricsQuality of life (healthcare)Quality-adjusted life yearRegression analysisRegressionIndex (typography)Scale (ratio)MathematicsPsychologyMedicineCost effectivenessPsychiatryHealth related quality of lifeComputer scienceCartographyDiseaseInternal medicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to map the disease-specific Schizophrenia Quality of Life Scale (SQLS) onto the three- and five-level EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D-3 L and EQ-5D-5 L), Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and Short Form six-dimensional (SF-6D) preference-based instruments to inform future cost-utility analyses for treatment of patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Data from 251 outpatients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders was included for analysis. Ordinary least square (OLS), Tobit and beta regression mixture models were employed to estimate the utility scores. Three regression models with a total of 66 specifications were determined by goodness of fit and predictive indices. Distribution of the original data to the distributions of the data generated using the preferred estimated models were then compared. RESULTS: EQ-5D-3 L and EQ-5D-5 L were best predicted by the OLS model, including SQLS domain scores, domain-squared scores, age, and gender as explanatory predictors. The models produced the best performance index and resembled most closely with the observed EQ-5D data. HUI3 and SF-6D were best predicted by the OLS and Tobit model respectively. CONCLUSION: The current study developed mapping models for converting SQLS scores into generic utility scores, which can be used for economic evaluation among patients with schizophrenia.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.414
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.133 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes ResearchSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207