MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411326462 · doi:10.1186/s13561-025-00651-6

How was published evidence used in model-based cost-utility analysis for lung cancer?

2025· article· en· W4411326462 on OpenAlexaff
Haijing Guan, Chunping Wang, Ruowei Xiao, Ting Zhou, Wěi Li, Yanan Xu, Zhigang Zhao, Sheng Han, Feng Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Economics Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLung cancerHealth economicsMedicineCitationEconometricsPublic healthStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsOncologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Model-based cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a widely used method for evaluating the value of innovative medicines for lung cancer. However, comprehensive evidence exploring the sources of input parameters for CUA modeling is lacking. The objective of this study was to analyze the sources of clinical efficacy and safety, cost, and health utility parameters in model-based CUAs for advanced lung cancer in the United States (US) and China. METHODS: We systematically reviewed model-based CUAs of pharmacological treatments for advanced lung cancer published between January 1, 2018 and March 31, 2025 in the US and Chinese setting. We classified the source of each parameter and retrieved the references cited for the parameters to analyze the citation path and level until we identified the original studies. We also compared the disease and region of parameters used in CUAs with those reported in the original studies. RESULTS: A total of 235 studies involving 10,005 parameters were included. Nearly half of the parameters (49.9%) were derived from published literature. Meanwhile, 17.7% had unidentifiable sources and 1.3% were based on assumptions. Among parameters cited from published literatures, 90.7% were first-level citations, but only 64.2% of cost parameters met this standard. Additionally, 30.8% of parameters showed discrepancies in disease or region between the CUAs and original studies. Parameter source distributions were similar between Chinese and US models. However, substantial differences were observed between Chinese and US models in the citation levels of cost parameters and the use of non-local utility data. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights challenges in parameter citation and the use of data inconsistent with the target disease and region in model-based CUAs. Enhancing transparency requires direct citation of original studies and generation of disease- and region-specific data to support robust economic evaluations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.218
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.701
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2180.701
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.018
Bibliometrics0.0430.045
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0200.016
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.550
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.023 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Economics ReviewSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207