MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412173418 · doi:10.1017/rsm.2025.10021

Regression augmented weighting adjustment for indirect comparisons in health decision modelling

2025· article· en· W4412173418 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna Heath, Gianluca Baio

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Synthesis Methods · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWeightingComputer scienceRegression analysisEconometricsStatisticsRegressionMachine learningMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Understanding the relative costs and effectiveness of all competing interventions is crucial to informing health resource allocations. However, to receive regulatory approval for efficacy, novel pharmaceuticals are typically only compared against placebo or standard of care. The relative efficacy against the best alternative intervention relies on indirect comparisons of different interventions. When treatment effect modifiers are distributed differently across trials, population adjustment is necessary to ensure a fair comparison. Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons (MAIC) is the most widely adopted weighting-based method for this purpose. Nevertheless, MAIC can exhibit instability under poor population overlap. Regression-based approaches to overcome this issue are heavily dependent on parametric assumptions. METHODS: We introduce a novel method, 'G-MAIC,' which combines outcome regression and weighting-adjustment to address these limitations. Inspired by Bayesian survey inference, G-MAIC employs Bayesian bootstrap to propagate the uncertainty of population-adjusted estimates. We evaluate the performance of G-MAIC against standard non-adjusted methods, MAIC and Parametric G-computation, in a simulation study encompassing 18 scenarios with varying trial sample sizes, population overlaps, and covariate structures. RESULTS: Under poor overlap and small sample sizes, MAIC can produce non-sensible variance estimations or increased bias compared to non-adjusted methods, depending on covariate structures in the two trials compared. G-MAIC mitigates this issue, achieving comparable performance to parametric G-computation with reduced reliance on parametric assumptions. CONCLUSION: G-MAIC presents a robust alternative to the widely adopted MAIC for population-adjusted indirect comparisons. The underlying framework is flexible such that it can accommodate advanced nonparametric outcome models and alternative weighting schemes.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.194
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.194
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
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 head0.649
GPT teacher head0.664
Teacher spread0.015 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Synthesis MethodsSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207