AOTMiT reimbursement recommendations compared to other HTA agencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to compare AOTMiT (Polish: Agencja Oceny Technologii Medycznych i Taryfikacji) recommendations to other HTA (Health Technology Assessment) agencies for newly registered drugs and new registration indications issued by the European Medicines Agency between 2014 and 2019. The study aims to assess the consistency and justifications of AOTMiT recommendations compared to that of other HTA agencies in 11 countries. A total of 2496 reimbursement recommendations published by 12 HTA agencies for 464 medicinal products and 525 indications were analyzed. Our analysis confirmed that the Polish AOTMiT agency seems to bear the closest resemblance to the corresponding HTA agencies from Canada (CADTH) and New Zealand (PHARMAC), when it comes to the outcome of HTA recommendations (positive or negative). Poland had a general scheme for justifying recommendations, similar to that of Ireland-four aspects (i.e., clinical efficacy, safety profile, cost-effectiveness, and impact on the payer's budget) are important for Poland when formulating the final decision. Compared to other countries, Poland shows a noticeably different pattern of justifying reimbursement recommendations, as revealed primarily in terms of budget impact and somewhat less so for cost-effectiveness rationales.
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 | 0.040 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".