A comparison of international modelling methods to evaluate health economics of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is becoming an increasing health problem worldwide. However, with the help of screening, early diagnosis can reduce incidence and mortality rates. To elevate the economic burden that CRC can cause, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can assist healthcare systems to make screening programmes more cost-effective and prolong survival for early-stage CRC patients. This review aims to identify different CEA modelling methods used internationally to evaluate health economics of CRC screening. Methods This review will systematically search electronic databases which include MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Scopus. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance recommendations will design the review, and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement will be used to extract relevant data from studies retrieved. Two reviewers will screen through the evidence using the PICOS (Participant, Intervention, Comparators, Outcomes, Study Design) framework, with a third reviewer to settle any disagreements. Once data extraction and quality assessment are complete, the results will be presented qualitatively and tabulated using the CHEERS checklist. Discussion The results obtained from the systematic review will highlight how different CRC screening programmes around the world utilise and incorporate health economic modelling methods to be more cost-effective. This information can help modellers develop CEA models which can be adapted to suit the specific screening programmes that they are evaluating. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42022296113
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 | 0.112 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.007 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".