Immediate Death: Not So Bad If You Discount the Future but Still Worse than It Should Be
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) as a valuation method require preferences to be anchored on the quality-adjusted life-year scale, usually through tasks involving choices between immediate death and various impaired health states or between health states with varying durations of life. We sought to determine which anchoring approach aligns best with the composite time tradeoff (cTTO) method, with a view to informing a valuation protocol that uses DCEs in place of the cTTO.MethodsA total of 970 respondents from Trinidad and Tobago completed a DCE with duration survey. Tasks involved choosing between 2 lives with identical durations, followed by a third option, representing either full health for a number of years or immediate death. Data were analyzed using mixed logit models, both with and without exponential discounting for time preferences.ResultsAssuming linear time preferences, the estimated utility of immediate death was -2.1 (95% credible interval [CrI] -3.2 to -1.2) versus -0.28 (95% CrI -0.47, -0.10) when allowing for nonlinear time preferences. Under linear time preferences, the predicted health-state values anchored on duration had range (-1.03, 1) versus (0.34, 1) when anchored on immediate death. The ranges under nonlinear time preferences were (-0.54, 1) versus (-0.22, 1). The estimated discount parameter was 23% (95% CrI 22% to 25%).ConclusionsThe nonzero discount parameter indicates that time preferences were nonlinear. Nonlinear time preferences anchored on duration provided the closest match to the benchmark EQ-VT cTTO values in Trinidad and Tobago, whose range was (-0.6, 1). Thus, DCE with duration can provide similar values to cTTO provided that nonlinear time preferences are accounted for and anchoring is based on duration.HighlightsTime preferences for health states in Trinidad and Tobago were nonlinear.In discrete choice tasks, we show that immediate death has a utility less than zero.DCE utilities under nonlinear time preferences with anchoring on duration agreed well with cTTO utilities.
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 | 0.015 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".