IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i1p68-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness and Value-of-Information Analysis Using Machine Learning–Based Metamodeling: A Case of Hepatitis C Treatment

Author

Listed:
  • John Austin McCandlish

    (Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia)

  • Turgay Ayer

    (Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia)

  • Jagpreet Chhatwal

    (Massachusetts General Hospital Institute for Technology Assessment, Boston, Massachusetts
    Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts)

Abstract

Background Metamodels can address some of the limitations of complex simulation models by formulating a mathematical relationship between input parameters and simulation model outcomes. Our objective was to develop and compare the performance of a machine learning (ML)–based metamodel against a conventional metamodeling approach in replicating the findings of a complex simulation model. Methods We constructed 3 ML-based metamodels using random forest, support vector regression, and artificial neural networks and a linear regression-based metamodel from a previously validated microsimulation model of the natural history hepatitis C virus (HCV) consisting of 40 input parameters. Outcomes of interest included societal costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of HCV treatment versus no treatment, cost-effectiveness analysis curve (CEAC), and expected value of perfect information (EVPI). We evaluated metamodel performance using root mean squared error (RMSE) and Pearson’s R 2 on the normalized data. Results The R 2 values for the linear regression metamodel for QALYs without treatment, QALYs with treatment, societal cost without treatment, societal cost with treatment, and ICER were 0.92, 0.98, 0.85, 0.92, and 0.60, respectively. The corresponding R 2 values for our ML-based metamodels were 0.96, 0.97, 0.90, 0.95, and 0.49 for support vector regression; 0.99, 0.83, 0.99, 0.99, and 0.82 for artificial neural network; and 0.99, 0.99, 0.99, 0.99, and 0.98 for random forest. Similar trends were observed for RMSE. The CEAC and EVPI curves produced by the random forest metamodel matched the results of the simulation output more closely than the linear regression metamodel. Conclusions ML-based metamodels generally outperformed traditional linear regression metamodels at replicating results from complex simulation models, with random forest metamodels performing best. Highlights Decision-analytic models are frequently used by policy makers and other stakeholders to assess the impact of new medical technologies and interventions. However, complex models can impose limitations on conducting probabilistic sensitivity analysis and value-of-information analysis, and may not be suitable for developing online decision-support tools. Metamodels, which accurately formulate a mathematical relationship between input parameters and model outcomes, can replicate complex simulation models and address the above limitation. The machine learning–based random forest model can outperform linear regression in replicating the findings of a complex simulation model. Such a metamodel can be used for conducting cost-effectiveness and value-of-information analyses or developing online decision support tools.

Suggested Citation

  • John Austin McCandlish & Turgay Ayer & Jagpreet Chhatwal, 2023. "Cost-Effectiveness and Value-of-Information Analysis Using Machine Learning–Based Metamodeling: A Case of Hepatitis C Treatment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(1), pages 68-77, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:1:p:68-77
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221125418
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221125418
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X221125418?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:1:p:68-77. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.