Replicating Health-Economic Simulation Models for Alzheimer's Disease Using Artificial Intelligence
Gilson, F.; Osstyn, S.; Handels, R.
Show abstract
BACKGROUNDTransparency and credibility of health-economic simulation models is essential to inform reimbursement decisions. Model replication can support model transparency and credibility. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models, offers new opportunities to accelerate model replication. This led to the research question: "To what extent can the results of existing health-economic Markov models be replicated by models developed using generative AI for eliciting input parameters and code generation?" METHODSReplication was performed in three steps. First, a chain-of-thought prompting strategy in ChatGPT-4 was developed to replicate in R an open-source model co-developed by one of the authors and with publicly available code. Second, it was applied to replicate a model co-developed by one of the authors but without publicly available code. Third, it was applied to a model without the involvement of the authors and without publicly available code. A mixed- methods approach was employed in terms of qualitatively addressing the face validity of the prompt development and refinement and quantitatively assessing deviations between AI- generated and original model predictions. RESULTSThe first model required approximately one month to replicate, while adaptations to the second and third models took approximately two weeks each. Across the three models and 45 replications (15 per model), the average absolute relative deviations between ChatGPT-4 generated model predictions and published results were: [≤]14% for quality-adjusted life years and costs in the first model, [≤]7% in the second model, and [≤]28% in the third model. CONCLUSIONSOur approach could support more time-efficient model replication for reimbursement decision-makers, researchers or pharmaceutical companies. This could contribute to transparency and credibility of health-economic models.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- New IPECAD open-source model framework for the health technology assessment of early Alzheimer’s disease treatment: development and use cases 96%
- Emerging Therapies for COVID-19: the value of information from more clinical trials 92%
- Statistical Decision Properties of Imprecise Trials Assessing COVID-19 Drugs 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Tutorial on Discrete Event Simulation Models in R Using a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Example 92%
- Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 90%
- A novel decision modeling framework for health policy analyses when outcomes are influenced by social and disease processes 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 92%
- CohortDiagnostics: phenotype evaluation across a network of observational data sources using population-level characterization 92%
- Identifying incident dementia by applying machine learning to a very large administrative claims dataset 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparing randomized trial designs to estimate treatment effect in rare diseases with longitudinal models: a simulation study showcased by Autosomal Recessive Cerebellar Ataxias using the SARA score 92%
- Prediction-powered Inference for Clinical Trials 92%
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 92%
"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.