Back

Protocol for the development of an artificial intelligence extension to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022

Hawksworth, C.; Elvidge, J.; Knies, S.; Zemplenyi, A.; Petyko, Z.; Siirtola, P.; Chandra, G.; Srivastava, D.; Denniston, A.; Chalkidou, A.; Delaye, J.; Nousios, P.; Gomes, M.; Avsar, T. S.; Wang, J.; Petrou, S.; Dawoud, D. M.

2023-06-01 health economics
10.1101/2023.05.31.23290788 medRxiv
Show abstract

1.2.IntroductionAI interventions for health care are on the rise. Decisions about coverage and reimbursement are often informed by Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, who rely on Health Economic Evaluations (HEEs) to estimate the value for money (cost effectiveness) of interventions. Transparent reporting of HEEs ensures they can be used for decision making. Reporting guidance exists to support this, such as the Consolidated Health Economic Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. We aim to identify consensus about specific items should be reported by HEEs that evaluate AI interventions and, if such items are identified, to develop them into an extension to CHEERS: "CHEERS-AI". Methods and analysisThe project will have 4 phases: O_LIPhase 1 is a literature review to help identify potential AI-related reporting items. C_LIO_LIPhase 2 commences a Delphi process, with a series of surveys to elicit the importance of the potential AI-related reporting items. C_LIO_LIPhase 3 is a consensus-generation meeting to agree on the final extension items. C_LIO_LIPhase 4 is dissemination of the projects outputs. C_LI Ethics and disseminationThis study has received ethical approval from Newcastle University Ethics Committee (reference: 28568/2022). The findings will be available in as an open access article and disseminated through blogs, newsletters, and presentations. 1.3. Funding statementThis study is supported by the Next Generation Health Technology Assessment (HTx) project. The HTx project has received funding from the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N{o} 825162. This dissemination reflects only the views of the authors and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.