使用自动文本分类来探索罕见病药物良好评价中的不确定性。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care Pub Date : 2024-01-05 DOI:10.1017/S0266462323002805
Lea Wiedmann, Jack Blumenau, Orlagh Carroll, John Cairns
{"title":"使用自动文本分类来探索罕见病药物良好评价中的不确定性。","authors":"Lea Wiedmann, Jack Blumenau, Orlagh Carroll, John Cairns","doi":"10.1017/S0266462323002805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examined the application, feasibility, and validity of supervised learning models for text classification in appraisals for rare disease treatments (RDTs) in relation to uncertainty, and analyzed differences between appraisals based on the classification results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed appraisals for RDTs (<i>n</i> = 94) published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) between January 2011 and May 2023. We used Naïve Bayes, Lasso, and Support Vector Machine models in a binary text classification task (classifying paragraphs as either referencing uncertainty in the evidence base or not). To illustrate the results, we tested hypotheses in relation to the appraisal guidance, advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) status, disease area, and age group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The best performing (Lasso) model achieved 83.6 percent classification accuracy (sensitivity = 74.4 percent, specificity = 92.6 percent). Paragraphs classified as referencing uncertainty were significantly more likely to arise in highly specialized technology (HST) appraisals compared to appraisals from the technology appraisal (TA) guidance (adjusted odds ratio = 1.44, 95 percent CI 1.09, 1.90, <i>p</i> = 0.004). There was no significant association between paragraphs classified as referencing uncertainty and appraisals for ATMPs, non-oncology RDTs, and RDTs indicated for children only or adults and children. These results were robust to the threshold value used for classifying paragraphs but were sensitive to the choice of classification model.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using supervised learning models for text classification in NICE appraisals for RDTs is feasible, but the results of downstream analyses may be sensitive to the choice of classification model.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10859832/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using automated text classification to explore uncertainty in NICE appraisals for drugs for rare diseases.\",\"authors\":\"Lea Wiedmann, Jack Blumenau, Orlagh Carroll, John Cairns\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0266462323002805\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examined the application, feasibility, and validity of supervised learning models for text classification in appraisals for rare disease treatments (RDTs) in relation to uncertainty, and analyzed differences between appraisals based on the classification results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed appraisals for RDTs (<i>n</i> = 94) published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) between January 2011 and May 2023. We used Naïve Bayes, Lasso, and Support Vector Machine models in a binary text classification task (classifying paragraphs as either referencing uncertainty in the evidence base or not). To illustrate the results, we tested hypotheses in relation to the appraisal guidance, advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) status, disease area, and age group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The best performing (Lasso) model achieved 83.6 percent classification accuracy (sensitivity = 74.4 percent, specificity = 92.6 percent). Paragraphs classified as referencing uncertainty were significantly more likely to arise in highly specialized technology (HST) appraisals compared to appraisals from the technology appraisal (TA) guidance (adjusted odds ratio = 1.44, 95 percent CI 1.09, 1.90, <i>p</i> = 0.004). There was no significant association between paragraphs classified as referencing uncertainty and appraisals for ATMPs, non-oncology RDTs, and RDTs indicated for children only or adults and children. These results were robust to the threshold value used for classifying paragraphs but were sensitive to the choice of classification model.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using supervised learning models for text classification in NICE appraisals for RDTs is feasible, but the results of downstream analyses may be sensitive to the choice of classification model.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10859832/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462323002805\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462323002805","RegionNum":4,"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: 0

摘要

目的:本研究考察了监督学习模型在罕见病治疗(RDTs)鉴定中与不确定性相关的文本分类中的应用、可行性和有效性,并根据分类结果分析了不同鉴定之间的差异:我们分析了美国国家健康与护理卓越研究所(NICE)在 2011 年 1 月至 2023 年 5 月期间发布的 RDT 评估(n = 94)。我们在二进制文本分类任务中使用了奈夫贝叶斯模型、拉索模型和支持向量机模型(将段落分类为引用证据基础中的不确定性或未引用证据基础中的不确定性)。为了说明结果,我们测试了与评估指南、先进治疗药物(ATMP)状态、疾病领域和年龄组相关的假设:结果:表现最好的(Lasso)模型达到了 83.6% 的分类准确率(灵敏度 = 74.4%,特异性 = 92.6%)。与技术鉴定(TA)指南中的鉴定相比,在高度专业化技术(HST)鉴定中,被归类为引用不确定性的段落出现的几率明显更高(调整后的几率比=1.44,95% CI 1.09,1.90,p = 0.004)。被归类为参考不确定性的段落与ATMP、非肿瘤学RDT以及仅适用于儿童或成人和儿童的RDT的评估之间无明显关联。这些结果对用于段落分类的阈值是稳健的,但对分类模型的选择很敏感:结论:在 NICE 的 RDT 评估中使用监督学习模型进行文本分类是可行的,但下游分析的结果可能对分类模型的选择很敏感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Using automated text classification to explore uncertainty in NICE appraisals for drugs for rare diseases.

Objective: This study examined the application, feasibility, and validity of supervised learning models for text classification in appraisals for rare disease treatments (RDTs) in relation to uncertainty, and analyzed differences between appraisals based on the classification results.

Methods: We analyzed appraisals for RDTs (n = 94) published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) between January 2011 and May 2023. We used Naïve Bayes, Lasso, and Support Vector Machine models in a binary text classification task (classifying paragraphs as either referencing uncertainty in the evidence base or not). To illustrate the results, we tested hypotheses in relation to the appraisal guidance, advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) status, disease area, and age group.

Results: The best performing (Lasso) model achieved 83.6 percent classification accuracy (sensitivity = 74.4 percent, specificity = 92.6 percent). Paragraphs classified as referencing uncertainty were significantly more likely to arise in highly specialized technology (HST) appraisals compared to appraisals from the technology appraisal (TA) guidance (adjusted odds ratio = 1.44, 95 percent CI 1.09, 1.90, p = 0.004). There was no significant association between paragraphs classified as referencing uncertainty and appraisals for ATMPs, non-oncology RDTs, and RDTs indicated for children only or adults and children. These results were robust to the threshold value used for classifying paragraphs but were sensitive to the choice of classification model.

Conclusion: Using supervised learning models for text classification in NICE appraisals for RDTs is feasible, but the results of downstream analyses may be sensitive to the choice of classification model.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
15.60%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.
期刊最新文献
Development of an MCDA Framework for Rare Disease Reimbursement Prioritization in Malaysia. Experiences of patient organizations' involvement in medicine appraisal and reimbursement processes in Finland - a qualitative study. PP78 Real-World Trends And Medical Costs Of Stroke After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation In Korea: A Nationwide, Population-Based Study Can requests for real-world evidence by the French HTA body be planned? An exhaustive retrospective case-control study of medicinal products appraisals from 2016 to 2021. A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness of immunoglobulin treatment in patients with hematological malignancies.
×
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