Do different decision-analytic modeling approaches produce different results? A systematic review of cross-validation studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When choosing a modeling approach for health economic evaluation, certain criteria are often considered (e.g., population resolution, interactivity, time advancement mechanism, resource constraints). However, whether these criteria and their associated modeling approach impacts results remain poorly understood. A systematic review was conducted to identify cross-validation studies (i.e., modeling a problem using different approaches with the same body of evidence) to offer insight on this topic. With respect to population resolution, reviewed studies suggested that both aggregate- and individual-level models will generate comparable results, although a practical trade-off exists between validity and feasibility. In terms of interactivity, infectious-disease models consistently showed that, depending on the assumptions regarding probability of disease exposure, dynamic and static models may produce dissimilar results with opposing policy recommendations. Empirical evidence on the remaining criteria is limited. Greater discussion will therefore be necessary to promote a deeper understanding of the benefits and limits to each modeling approach.
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 | 0.332 | 0.593 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".