Cost-Effectiveness and Value-of-Information Analysis Using Machine Learning-Based Metamodeling: A Case of Hepatitis C Treatment.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/0272989X221125418
John Austin McCandlish, Turgay Ayer, Jagpreet Chhatwal
{"title":"Cost-Effectiveness and Value-of-Information Analysis Using Machine Learning-Based Metamodeling: A Case of Hepatitis C Treatment.","authors":"John Austin McCandlish,&nbsp;Turgay Ayer,&nbsp;Jagpreet Chhatwal","doi":"10.1177/0272989X221125418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Metamodels can address some of the limitations of complex simulation models by formulating a mathematical relationship between input parameters and simulation model outcomes. Our objective was to develop and compare the performance of a machine learning (ML)-based metamodel against a conventional metamodeling approach in replicating the findings of a complex simulation model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We constructed 3 ML-based metamodels using random forest, support vector regression, and artificial neural networks and a linear regression-based metamodel from a previously validated microsimulation model of the natural history hepatitis C virus (HCV) consisting of 40 input parameters. Outcomes of interest included societal costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of HCV treatment versus no treatment, cost-effectiveness analysis curve (CEAC), and expected value of perfect information (EVPI). We evaluated metamodel performance using root mean squared error (RMSE) and Pearson's <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> on the normalized data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> values for the linear regression metamodel for QALYs without treatment, QALYs with treatment, societal cost without treatment, societal cost with treatment, and ICER were 0.92, 0.98, 0.85, 0.92, and 0.60, respectively. The corresponding <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> values for our ML-based metamodels were 0.96, 0.97, 0.90, 0.95, and 0.49 for support vector regression; 0.99, 0.83, 0.99, 0.99, and 0.82 for artificial neural network; and 0.99, 0.99, 0.99, 0.99, and 0.98 for random forest. Similar trends were observed for RMSE. The CEAC and EVPI curves produced by the random forest metamodel matched the results of the simulation output more closely than the linear regression metamodel.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ML-based metamodels generally outperformed traditional linear regression metamodels at replicating results from complex simulation models, with random forest metamodels performing best.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Decision-analytic models are frequently used by policy makers and other stakeholders to assess the impact of new medical technologies and interventions. However, complex models can impose limitations on conducting probabilistic sensitivity analysis and value-of-information analysis, and may not be suitable for developing online decision-support tools.Metamodels, which accurately formulate a mathematical relationship between input parameters and model outcomes, can replicate complex simulation models and address the above limitation.The machine learning-based random forest model can outperform linear regression in replicating the findings of a complex simulation model. Such a metamodel can be used for conducting cost-effectiveness and value-of-information analyses or developing online decision support tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":"43 1","pages":"68-77"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X221125418","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Metamodels can address some of the limitations of complex simulation models by formulating a mathematical relationship between input parameters and simulation model outcomes. Our objective was to develop and compare the performance of a machine learning (ML)-based metamodel against a conventional metamodeling approach in replicating the findings of a complex simulation model.

Methods: We constructed 3 ML-based metamodels using random forest, support vector regression, and artificial neural networks and a linear regression-based metamodel from a previously validated microsimulation model of the natural history hepatitis C virus (HCV) consisting of 40 input parameters. Outcomes of interest included societal costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of HCV treatment versus no treatment, cost-effectiveness analysis curve (CEAC), and expected value of perfect information (EVPI). We evaluated metamodel performance using root mean squared error (RMSE) and Pearson's R2 on the normalized data.

Results: The R2 values for the linear regression metamodel for QALYs without treatment, QALYs with treatment, societal cost without treatment, societal cost with treatment, and ICER were 0.92, 0.98, 0.85, 0.92, and 0.60, respectively. The corresponding R2 values for our ML-based metamodels were 0.96, 0.97, 0.90, 0.95, and 0.49 for support vector regression; 0.99, 0.83, 0.99, 0.99, and 0.82 for artificial neural network; and 0.99, 0.99, 0.99, 0.99, and 0.98 for random forest. Similar trends were observed for RMSE. The CEAC and EVPI curves produced by the random forest metamodel matched the results of the simulation output more closely than the linear regression metamodel.

Conclusions: ML-based metamodels generally outperformed traditional linear regression metamodels at replicating results from complex simulation models, with random forest metamodels performing best.

Highlights: Decision-analytic models are frequently used by policy makers and other stakeholders to assess the impact of new medical technologies and interventions. However, complex models can impose limitations on conducting probabilistic sensitivity analysis and value-of-information analysis, and may not be suitable for developing online decision-support tools.Metamodels, which accurately formulate a mathematical relationship between input parameters and model outcomes, can replicate complex simulation models and address the above limitation.The machine learning-based random forest model can outperform linear regression in replicating the findings of a complex simulation model. Such a metamodel can be used for conducting cost-effectiveness and value-of-information analyses or developing online decision support tools.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于机器学习的元模型的成本效益和信息价值分析:一个丙型肝炎治疗案例。
背景:元模型可以通过在输入参数和仿真模型结果之间建立数学关系来解决复杂仿真模型的一些局限性。我们的目标是在复制复杂仿真模型的结果时,开发并比较基于机器学习(ML)的元模型与传统元建模方法的性能。方法:我们使用随机森林、支持向量回归和人工神经网络构建了3个基于ml的元模型,以及一个基于线性回归的元模型,该元模型来自先前验证过的由40个输入参数组成的丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)自然史微观模拟模型。关注的结局包括社会成本和质量调整生命年(QALYs)、HCV治疗与不治疗的增量成本-效果(ICER)、成本-效果分析曲线(CEAC)和完美信息期望值(EVPI)。我们使用归一化数据的均方根误差(RMSE)和Pearson’s R2来评估元模型的性能。结果:未治疗的QALYs、治疗后的QALYs、未治疗的社会成本、治疗后的社会成本、ICER的线性回归元模型R2分别为0.92、0.98、0.85、0.92、0.60。基于ml的元模型对应的R2值分别为0.96、0.97、0.90、0.95和0.49;人工神经网络为0.99、0.83、0.99、0.99、0.82;随机森林是0.99,0.99,0.99,0.99和0.98。均方根误差也有类似的趋势。随机森林元模型生成的CEAC和EVPI曲线比线性回归元模型更接近模拟输出的结果。结论:基于ml的元模型在复制复杂模拟模型的结果方面普遍优于传统的线性回归元模型,其中随机森林元模型表现最好。重点:决策分析模型经常被决策者和其他利益相关者用来评估新的医疗技术和干预措施的影响。然而,复杂的模型可能会对概率敏感性分析和信息价值分析施加限制,并且可能不适合开发在线决策支持工具。元模型准确地建立了输入参数与模型结果之间的数学关系,可以复制复杂的仿真模型,解决了上述限制。基于机器学习的随机森林模型在复制复杂模拟模型的结果方面优于线性回归。这种元模型可用于进行成本效益和信息价值分析或开发在线决策支持工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process. Multi-indication Evidence Synthesis in Oncology Health Technology Assessment: Meta-analysis Methods and Their Application to a Case Study of Bevacizumab. Use of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis-Based Values Clarification in a Patient Decision Aid Is Not Associated with Better Perceived Values Clarity or Reduced Decisional Conflict but Enhances Values Congruence. A Sequential Calibration Approach to Address Challenges of Repeated Calibration of a COVID-19 Model. A Longitudinal Study of the Association of Awareness of Disease Incurability with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1