The EQ-5D-5L valuation study for Trinidad and Tobago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The 2016 EQ-5D-3L value set for Trinidad and Tobago (T&T) allows for the calculation of EQ-5D-5L values via the crosswalk algorithm. The 2016 value set was based on methods predating the EQ-VT protocol, now considered the gold standard for developing EQ-5D value sets. Furthermore, direct elicitation of EQ-5D-5L is preferred over crosswalked values. This study aimed to produce an EQ-5D-5L value set for T&T. METHODS: A representative sample (age, sex, geography) of adults each completed 10 composite Time Trade-Off (cTTO) tasks and 12 Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) tasks in face-to-face interviews. The cTTO data were analyzed using a Tobit model that corrects for heteroskedasticity. DCE data were analyzed using a mixed logit model. The cTTO and DCE data were combined in hybrid models. RESULTS: One thousand and seventy-nine adults completed the valuation interviews. Among the modelling approaches that were explored, the hybrid heteroskedastic Tobit model produced all internally consistent, statistically significant coefficients, and performed best in terms of out-of-sample predictivity for single states. Compared to the existing EQ-5D-5L crosswalk set, the new value set had a higher number of negative values (236 or 7.6% versus 21 or 0.7%). The mean absolute difference was 0.157 and the correlation coefficient between the two sets was 0.879. CONCLUSION: This study provides a value set for the EQ-5D-5L for T&T using the EQ-VT protocol. We recommend this value set for QALY computations relating to T&T.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".