Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38178720›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2024

Using automated text classification to explore uncertainty in NICE appraisals for drugs for rare diseases.

Lea Wiedmann, Jack Blumenau, Orlagh Carroll, John Cairns

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Lea WiedmannDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8259-0774
Jack BlumenauDepartment of Political Science, Faculty of Social & Historical Sciences, University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0536-1564
Orlagh CarrollDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2449-790X
John CairnsDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6442-0440

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study examined the application, feasibility, and validity of supervised learning models for text classification in appraisals for rare disease treatments (RDTs) in relation to uncertainty, and analyzed differences between appraisals based on the classification results.

methodsWe analyzed appraisals for RDTs (

resultsThe best performing (Lasso) model achieved 83.6 percent classification accuracy (sensitivity = 74.4 percent, specificity = 92.6 percent). Paragraphs classified as referencing uncertainty were significantly more likely to arise in highly specialized technology (HST) appraisals compared to appraisals from the technology appraisal (TA) guidance (adjusted odds ratio = 1.44, 95 percent CI 1.09, 1.90,

conclusionUsing supervised learning models for text classification in NICE appraisals for RDTs is feasible, but the results of downstream analyses may be sensitive to the choice of classification model.

Indexed as

Rare DiseasesTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalAdultBayes TheoremChildCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansUncertaintyhealth technology assessmentNational Institute for Health and Care Excellencerare diseasessupervised learninguncertainty

Identifiers

PMID38178720
PMCPMC10859832

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.