Paper detail

Characterization and valuation of uncertainty of calibrated parameters in stochastic decision models

We evaluated the implications of different approaches to characterize uncertainty of calibrated parameters of stochastic decision models (DMs) in the quantified value of such uncertainty in decision making. We used a microsimulation DM of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a 10-year colonoscopy screening. We calibrated the natural history model of CRC to epidemiological data with different degrees of uncertainty and obtained the joint posterior distribution of the parameters using a Bayesian approach. We conducted a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) on all the model parameters with different characterizations of uncertainty of the calibrated parameters and estimated the value of uncertainty of the different characterizations with a value of information analysis. All analyses were conducted using high performance computing resources running the Extreme-scale Model Exploration with Swift (EMEWS) framework. The posterior distribution had high correlation among some parameters. The parameters of the Weibull hazard function for the age of onset of adenomas had the highest posterior correlation of -0.958. Considering full posterior distributions and the maximum-a-posteriori estimate of the calibrated parameters, there is little difference on the spread of the distribution of the CEA outcomes with a similar expected value of perfect information (EVPI) of \$653 and \$685, respectively, at a WTP of \$66,000/QALY. Ignoring correlation on the posterior distribution of the calibrated parameters, produced the widest distribution of CEA outcomes and the highest EVPI of \$809 at the same WTP. Different characterizations of uncertainty of calibrated parameters have implications on the expect value of reducing uncertainty on the CEA. Ignoring inherent correlation among calibrated parameters on a PSA overestimates the value of uncertainty.

preprint2019arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors4 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.