ArticlePharmacoEconomics2022
Calibrating Natural History of Cancer Models in the Presence of Data Incompatibility: Problems and Solutions.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ten Recommendations for Modelling Cost Effectiveness of Screening: Perspectives of an International Stakeholder Group.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- Home Urine Dipstick Screening for Bladder and Kidney Cancer in High-Risk Populations in England: A Microsimulation Study of Long-Term Impact and Cost-Effectiveness.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Challenges and Opportunities in Interdisciplinary Research and Real-World Data for Treatment Sequences in Health Technology Assessments.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Review
- Calibration and Validation of the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality (CRC-AIM) Microsimulation Model Using Deep Neural Networks.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023Article
- Belimumab for Treating Active Autoantibody-Positive Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Review
- Modelling the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on bowel cancer screening outcomes in England: A decision analysis to prepare for future screening disruption.Preventive medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The calibration of cancer natural history models is often challenged by a lack of representative calibration targets, forcing modellers to rely on potentially incompatible datasets. Using a microsimulation colorectal cancer model as an example, the purposes of this paper are to (1) highlight the reasons for uncertainty in calibration targets, (2) illustrate practical and generalisable approaches for dealing with incompatibility in calibration targets, and (3) discuss the importance of future research in the area of incorporating uncertainty in calibration. The low quality of data and differences in populations, outcome definitions, and healthcare systems may result in incompatibility between the model and the data. Acknowledging reasons for data incompatibility allows assessment of the risk of incompatibility before calibrating the model. Only a few approaches are available to address data incompatibility, for instance addressing biases in calibration targets and their adjustment, relaxing the goodness-of-fit metric, and validation of the calibration targets to the data not used in the calibration. However, these approaches lack explicit comparison and validation, and so more research is needed to describe the nature and causes of indirect uncertainty (i.e. uncertainty that cannot be expressed in absolute quantitative forms) and identify methods for managing this uncertainty in healthcare modelling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.