Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19663525›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2009

Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines.

Natasha K Stout, Amy B Knudsen, Chung Yin Kong, Pamela M McMahon, G Scott Gazelle

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

82 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A Scoping Review on Calibration Methods for Cancer Simulation Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Article
  16. Modeling the Impact of Multicancer Early Detection Tests: A Review of Natural History of Disease Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Natural history models for lung Cancer: A scoping review.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025
    Article
  20. Review

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Natasha K StoutDepartment of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA. natasha_stout@hms.harvard.edu
Amy B Knudsen
Chung Yin Kong
Pamela M McMahon
G Scott Gazelle

Funding

Program in Cancer Research Outcomes Training (PCORT)R25CA092203 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI GAZELLE, G SCOTT · 2002 to 2016
$8.2M
A Lung Cancer Policy ModelR01CA097337 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI GAZELLE, G SCOTT · 2004 to 2006
$1.1M
Developing approaches for modeling genomic and proteomic profiles in lung cancerR00CA126147 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI MCMAHON, PAMELA MARKELL · 2009 to 2011
$718k
Developing approaches for modeling genomic and proteomic profiles in lung cancerK99CA126147 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI MCMAHON, PAMELA MARKELL · 2007 to 2008
$283k
Modeling Breast Carcinoma In Situ: Implications for Prevention and ControlF32CA125984 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI STOUT, NATASHA KAY · 2006 to 2009
$152k
NCI NIH HHS F32 CA125984NCI NIH HHS K99 CA126147NCI NIH HHS R00 CA126147NCI NIH HHS R01 CA097337NCI NIH HHS R25 CA092203NCI NIH HHS R25 CA92203PHS HHS K99 126147PHS HHS R01 97337
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasingly, computer simulation models are used for economic and policy evaluation in cancer prevention and control. A model's predictions of key outcomes, such as screening effectiveness, depend on the values of unobservable natural history parameters. Calibration is the process of determining the values of unobservable parameters by constraining model output to replicate observed data. Because there are many approaches for model calibration and little consensus on best practices, we surveyed the literature to catalogue the use and reporting of these methods in cancer simulation models. We conducted a MEDLINE search (1980 through 2006) for articles on cancer-screening models and supplemented search results with articles from our personal reference databases. For each article, two authors independently abstracted pre-determined items using a standard form. Data items included cancer site, model type, methods used for determination of unobservable parameter values and description of any calibration protocol. All authors reached consensus on items of disagreement. Reviews and non-cancer models were excluded. Articles describing analytical models, which estimate parameters with statistical approaches (e.g. maximum likelihood) were catalogued separately. Models that included unobservable parameters were analysed and classified by whether calibration methods were reported and if so, the methods used. The review process yielded 154 articles that met our inclusion criteria and, of these, we concluded that 131 may have used calibration methods to determine model parameters. Although the term 'calibration' was not always used, descriptions of calibration or 'model fitting' were found in 50% (n = 66) of the articles, with an additional 16% (n = 21) providing a reference to methods. Calibration target data were identified in nearly all of these articles. Other methodological details, such as the goodness-of-fit metric, were discussed in 54% (n = 47 of 87) of the articles reporting calibration methods, while few details were provided on the algorithms used to search the parameter space. Our review shows that the use of cancer simulation modelling is increasing, although thorough descriptions of calibration procedures are rare in the published literature for these models. Calibration is a key component of model development and is central to the validity and credibility of subsequent analyses and inferences drawn from model predictions. To aid peer-review and facilitate discussion of modelling methods, we propose a standardized Calibration Reporting Checklist for model documentation.

Indexed as

CalibrationComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalGuidelines as TopicHumansModels, StatisticalNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID19663525
PMCPMC2787446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.