Transportability of nonlocal real-world evidence and its relevance to health technology assessment: a primer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-world evidence (RWE) from outside Canada or the UK is sometimes included in submissions to health technology assessments by Canada's Drug Agency/L'Agence des médicaments du Canada (CDA-AMC) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence when local data are lacking, particularly in rare diseases. However, differences in population demographics, healthcare systems and clinical practice patterns between different jurisdictions can pose challenges for contextualizing nonlocal data for health technology assessments. This primer outlines the challenges of using nonlocal RWE for decision-making, presents assumptions necessary for transportability of RWE, and describes quantitative methods to address these challenges. This primer is written for a broad audience, including industry stakeholders, researchers and clinicians, who are seeking accessible guidance on the use of nonlocal RWE and developments in the field of transportability.
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 | 0.246 | 0.395 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".