Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35022005›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022

Sequentially calibrating a Bayesian microsimulation model to incorporate new information and assumptions.

Maria DeYoreo, Carolyn M Rutter, Jonathan Ozik, Nicholson Collier

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maria DeYoreoRAND Corporation, 1776 Main St., Santa Monica, CA, 90401, USA. mdeyoreo@rand.org.ORCID 0000-0002-3847-1030
Carolyn M RutterRAND Corporation, 1776 Main St., Santa Monica, CA, 90401, USA.
Jonathan OzikArgonne National Laboratory, Building 221, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL, 60439, USA.
Nicholson CollierArgonne National Laboratory, Building 221, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL, 60439, USA.
Argonne National Laboratory · USRAND Corporation · US

Funding

Comparative Modeling of Effective Policies for Colorectal Cancer ControlU01CA253913 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI RUTTER, CAROLYN M, ZAUBER, ANN GRAHAM · 2020 to 2025
$6.5M
Comparative Modeling of Colorectal Cancer: Informing Health Policies and Prioritizing Future ResearchU01CA199335 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI KUNTZ, KAREN M, LANSDORP-VOGELAAR, IRIS · 2015 to 2019
$5.5M
Computational discovery of effective hepatitis C intervention strategiesR01GM121600 · NIGMS · LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO · PI BOODRAM, BASMATTEE, DAHARI, HAREL · 2017 to 2021
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS U01-CA-199335NCI NIH HHS U01 CA253913NCI NIH HHS U01-CA-CA253913NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM121600NIH HHS R01GM121600
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicrosimulation models are mathematical models that simulate event histories for individual members of a population. They are useful for policy decisions because they simulate a large number of individuals from an idealized population, with features that change over time, and the resulting event histories can be summarized to describe key population-level outcomes. Model calibration is the process of incorporating evidence into the model. Calibrated models can be used to make predictions about population trends in disease outcomes and effectiveness of interventions, but calibration can be challenging and computationally expensive.

methodsThis paper develops a technique for sequentially updating models to take full advantage of earlier calibration results, to ultimately speed up the calibration process. A Bayesian approach to calibration is used because it combines different sources of evidence and enables uncertainty quantification which is appealing for decision-making. We develop this method in order to re-calibrate a microsimulation model for the natural history of colorectal cancer to include new targets that better inform the time from initiation of preclinical cancer to presentation with clinical cancer (sojourn time), because model exploration and validation revealed that more information was needed on sojourn time, and that the predicted percentage of patients with cancers detected via colonoscopy screening was too low.

resultsThe sequential approach to calibration was more efficient than recalibrating the model from scratch. Incorporating new information on the percentage of patients with cancers detected upon screening changed the estimated sojourn time parameters significantly, increasing the estimated mean sojourn time for cancers in the colon and rectum, providing results with more validity.

conclusionsA sequential approach to recalibration can be used to efficiently recalibrate a microsimulation model when new information becomes available that requires the original targets to be supplemented with additional targets.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyModels, TheoreticalBayes TheoremCalibrationHumansMass Screening

Identifiers

PMID35022005
PMCPMC8756687
OpenAlexW4206462209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.