ArticlePLOS digital health2026
A natural language processing approach to determine whether streamlined health technology assessment for multi-indication medicines is feasible.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conducting a health technology assessment (HTA) for each indication of a medicine contributes to increasing demand on HTA systems and results in delays in access. Streamlining assessments for subsequent indications has been proposed, but there is limited evidence on how this could be achieved. We aimed to quantify semantic similarity between HTA documents for different indications of the same medicine to explore whether concepts could be carried forward to subsequent assessments. Public Summary Documents (PSDs) from July 2019 to November 2024 were included if they related to new major submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Each paragraph was embedded using the Sentence-Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (SBERT) model. Pairwise Euclidean distances (measuring semantic similarity) were quantified between embeddings across indications for multi-indication medicines and were compared with those for single-indication medicines. Cluster analysis, followed by manual thematic review, identified recurrent concepts across indications of the same medicine. A total of 326 PSDs were included (154 single-indication medicines, 59 multi-indication medicines). Multi-indication medicines demonstrated significantly greater semantic similarity across their indications compared with single-indication medicines. However, recurrence of specific concepts across either all or similar indications of a medicine was infrequent. Despite the greater semantic similarity observed across indications of multi-indication medicines, this did not translate into substantial opportunities to carry forward assessment concepts. Therefore, it is unlikely that any concepts or information from assessments undertaken for previous indications could be carried forward to subsequent indications. The methods described provide a foundation for future research on semantic overlap in HTA and other policy areas.
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.