MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413400952 · doi:10.57264/cer-2025-0041

Transportability of nonlocal real-world evidence and its relevance to health technology assessment: a primer

2025· review· en· W4413400952 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alind Gupta, Stephen Duffield, Cal Shephard, Eon Ting, Sanjay Popat, Winson Y. Cheung, Paul Arora

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgaryAstraZeneca (Canada)Toronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcellenceAgency (philosophy)Health technologyMedicineHealth careBenchmarkingRelevance (law)Health information technologyDemographicsEvidence-based practicePublic relationsMedical educationAlternative medicinePolitical scienceBusinessMarketingSocial scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.082
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0820.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.720
GPT teacher head0.667
Teacher spread0.053 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness ResearchSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207