Bayesian Models with Spatial Correlation Improve the Precision of EQ-5D-5L Value Sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health utilities from value sets for the EQ-5D-5L are commonly used in economic evaluations. We examined whether modeling spatial correlation among health states could improve the precision of the value sets. METHODS: Using data from 7 EQ-5D-5L valuation studies, we compared the predictive precision of the published linear model, a recently proposed cross-attribute level effects (CALE) model, and 2 Bayesian models with spatial correlation. Predictive precision was quantified through the root mean squared error (RMSE) for out-of-sample predictions of state-level mean utilities on omitting individual states, as well as omitting blocks of states. RESULTS: In all 7 countries, on omitting single health states, Bayesian models with spatial correlation improved upon the published linear model: the RMSEs for the originally published models, 0.050, 0.051, 0.060, 0.061, 0.039, 0.050, and 0.087 for Canada, China, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and the Netherlands, respectively, could be reduced to 0.043, 0.042, 0.051, 0.054, 0.037, 0.037, and 0.085, respectively. On omitting blocks of health states, Bayesian models with spatial correlation led to smaller RMSEs in 3 countries, while the CALE model led to smaller RMSEs in the remaining 4 countries. DISCUSSION: Bayesian models incorporating spatial correlation and CALE models are promising for improving the precision of value sets for the EQ-5D-5L. The differential performance of the Bayesian models on omitting single states versus blocks of states suggests that designing valuation studies to capture more health states may further improve precision. We suggest that Bayesian and CALE models be considered as candidates when creating value sets and that alternative designs be explored; this is vital as the prediction errors in value sets need to be smaller than the minimal important difference of the instrument. HIGHLIGHTS: The accuracy of value sets of multi-attribute utility instruments is typically of the same order of magnitude as the instrument's minimal important difference and would benefit from improvement.Bayesian models with spatial correlation have been shown to improve value set accuracy in isolated cases.We showed that Bayesian approaches with spatial correlation improved predictive precision in 7 EQ-5D-5L valuation studies.We recommend that Bayesian models incorporating spatial correlation be considered when creating value sets and have provided code for fitting them.
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 | 0.071 | 0.203 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".