Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38340276›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2024

Artificial Intelligence to Automate Health Economic Modelling: A Case Study to Evaluate the Potential Application of Large Language Models.

Tim Reason, William Rawlinson, Julia Langham, Andy Gimblett, Bill Malcolm, Sven Klijn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Generative Artificial Intelligence for Health Technology Assessment: Opportunities, Challenges, and Policy Considerations: An ISPOR Working Group Report.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The transformative impact of large language models on medical writing and publishing: current applications, challenges and future directions.The Korean journal of physiology & pharmacology : official journal of the Korean Physiological Society and the Korean Society of Pharmacology · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tim ReasonEstima Scientific, Mediaworks, 191 Wood Ln, London, W12 7FP, UK. tim.reason@estima-sci.com.
William RawlinsonEstima Scientific, Mediaworks, 191 Wood Ln, London, W12 7FP, UK.
Julia LanghamEstima Scientific, Mediaworks, 191 Wood Ln, London, W12 7FP, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1046-7598
Andy GimblettEstima Scientific, Mediaworks, 191 Wood Ln, London, W12 7FP, UK.
Bill MalcolmBristol Myers Squibb, Uxbridge, UK.
Sven KlijnBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1556-8382
Bristol-Myers Squibb (United Kingdom) · GBBristol-Myers Squibb (United States) · USVictim Support · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent generation large language models (LLMs) such as Generative Pre-Trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) have achieved human-level performance on many tasks including the generation of computer code based on textual input. This study aimed to assess whether GPT-4 could be used to automatically programme two published health economic analyses.

methodsThe two analyses were partitioned survival models evaluating interventions in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We developed prompts which instructed GPT-4 to programme the NSCLC and RCC models in R, and which provided descriptions of each model's methods, assumptions and parameter values. The results of the generated scripts were compared to the published values from the original, human-programmed models. The models were replicated 15 times to capture variability in GPT-4's output.

resultsGPT-4 fully replicated the NSCLC model with high accuracy: 100% (15/15) of the artificial intelligence (AI)-generated NSCLC models were error-free or contained a single minor error, and 93% (14/15) were completely error-free. GPT-4 closely replicated the RCC model, although human intervention was required to simplify an element of the model design (one of the model's fifteen input calculations) because it used too many sequential steps to be implemented in a single prompt. With this simplification, 87% (13/15) of the AI-generated RCC models were error-free or contained a single minor error, and 60% (9/15) were completely error-free. Error-free model scripts replicated the published incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to within 1%.

conclusionThis study provides a promising indication that GPT-4 can have practical applications in the automation of health economic model construction. Potential benefits include accelerated model development timelines and reduced costs of development. Further research is necessary to explore the generalisability of LLM-based automation across a larger sample of models.

Identifiers

PMID38340276
PMCPMC10884386
OpenAlexW4391723611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.