MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415793403 · doi:10.1186/s13561-025-00686-9

Modeling in R: a practical application using a cost-effectiveness analysis

2025· review· en· W4415793403 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Economics Review · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité LavalThe Quebec Population Health Research Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth economicsHealth careSoftwareMicrosoft excelPublic healthHealth informaticsHealth services researchPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Economic Evaluation (EE) is increasingly used to inform the decision-making of various health care systems about which health care interventions to fund with the available resources. Until now, majority of cost-effectiveness analyses have been performed with Microsoft Excel (ME). Today, the trend is to use software that can improve the decision-making model and that can resolve complex problems, as well as ensure reproducibility and transparency. The intention of this tutorial paper is not to show the "best" way of developing decision models in R, but to provide two different codes described in a step-by-step guide on how to implement a Markov model, with an explanation to help beginners in modeling (e.g., health economists new to R) and MS Excel users and to switch to R without having any great knowledge of programming with R. This paper is offered to facilitate the wider use of R to implement decision-making models.

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.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.776
GPT teacher head0.619
Teacher spread0.156 · 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