MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412442958 · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.1017

HTA6 Real-World Evidence (RWE) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA): Global Guidelines on the Use of RWE in Evidence Generation for HTA Evaluation

2025· article· en· W4412442958 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Gamburg, Divya Tamminina, Neema Joseph, Jatinder Kumar, Javed Shaikh, Coby Martin, Navneet Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueValue in Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsEsri (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReal world evidenceHealth technologyMedicineBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)Health careEconomic growthInternal medicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.216
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.609
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2160.609
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.030
Bibliometrics0.0130.019
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0150.007
Open science0.0100.012
Research integrity0.0230.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.021

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 head0.875
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueValue in HealthSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207