MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407924818 · doi:10.1177/0272989x251319808

Changing Time Representation in Microsimulation Models

2025· article· en· W4407924818 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Wong, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, Joanna E. M. Sale, Andrea C. Tricco, Sharon E. Straus, David Naimark

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Decision Making · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptation
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentrePublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrosimulationTime horizonConstraint (computer-aided design)EconometricsComputer scienceInefficiencyDiscrete event simulationResource (disambiguation)EconomicsSimulationMathematical optimizationMathematicsMicroeconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundIn microsimulation models of diseases with an early, acute phase requiring short cycle lengths followed by a chronic phase, fixed short cycles may lead to computational inefficiency. Examples include epidemic or resource constraint models with early short cycles where long-term economic consequences are of interest for individuals surviving the epidemic or ultimately obtaining the resource. In this article, we demonstrate methods to improve efficiency in such scenarios. Furthermore, we show that care must be taken when applying these methods to epidemic or resource constraint models to avoid bias.MethodsTo demonstrate efficiency, we compared the model runtime among 3 versions of a microsimulation model: with short fixed cycles for all states (FCL), with dynamic cycle length (DCL) defined locally for each state, and with DCL features plus a discrete-event-like hybrid component. To demonstrate bias mitigation, we compared discounted lifetime costs for 3 versions of a resource constraint model: with a fixed horizon where simulation stops, with a fixed entry horizon beyond which new individuals could not enter the model, and with a fixed entry horizon plus a mechanism to maintain a constant level of competition for the resource after the horizon.ResultsThe 3 versions of the microsimulation model had average runtimes of 515 (95% credible interval [CI]: 477 to 545; FCL), 2.70 (95% CI: 1.48 to 2.92; DCL), and 1.45 (95% CI: 1.26 to 2.61; DCL-pseudo discrete event simulation) seconds, respectively. The first 2 resource constraint versions underestimated costs relative to the constant competition version: $20,055 (95% CI: $19,000 to $21,120), $27,030 (95% CI: $24,680 to $29,412), and $33,424 (95% CI: $27,510 to $44,484), respectively.LimitationsThe magnitude of improvements in efficiency and reduction in bias may be model specific.ConclusionChanging time representation in microsimulation may offer computational advantages.HighlightsShort cycle lengths may be required to model the acute phase of an illness but lead to computational inefficiency in a subsequent chronic phase in microsimulation models.A solution is to create state-specific cycle lengths so that cycle lengths change dynamically as the simulation progresses.Computational efficiency can be enhanced further by using a hybrid model containing discrete-event-simulation-like features.Hybrid models can efficiently handle events subsequent to exit from an epidemic or resource constraint model provided steps are taken to mitigate potential bias.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Decision MakingSame topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptationFrench-language works237,207