IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i2p168-181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multilevel and Quasi Monte Carlo Methods for the Calculation of the Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Fang

    (Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK)

  • Zhenru Wang

    (Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK)

  • Michael B. Giles

    (Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK)

  • Chris H. Jackson

    (MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK)

  • Nicky J. Welton

    (Population Health Science, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK)

  • Christophe Andrieu

    (School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK)

  • Howard Thom

    (Population Health Science, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK)

Abstract

The expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) provides an upper bound on the value of collecting further evidence on a set of inputs to a cost-effectiveness decision model. Standard Monte Carlo estimation of EVPPI is computationally expensive as it requires nested simulation. Alternatives based on regression approximations to the model have been developed but are not practicable when the number of uncertain parameters of interest is large and when parameter estimates are highly correlated. The error associated with the regression approximation is difficult to determine, while MC allows the bias and precision to be controlled. In this article, we explore the potential of quasi Monte Carlo (QMC) and multilevel Monte Carlo (MLMC) estimation to reduce the computational cost of estimating EVPPI by reducing the variance compared with MC while preserving accuracy. We also develop methods to apply QMC and MLMC to EVPPI, addressing particular challenges that arise where Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) has been used to estimate input parameter distributions. We illustrate the methods using 2 examples: a simplified decision tree model for treatments for depression and a complex Markov model for treatments to prevent stroke in atrial fibrillation, both of which use MCMC inputs. We compare the performance of QMC and MLMC with MC and the approximation techniques of generalized additive model (GAM) regression, Gaussian process (GP) regression, and integrated nested Laplace approximations (INLA-GP). We found QMC and MLMC to offer substantial computational savings when parameter sets are large and correlated and when the EVPPI is large. We also found that GP and INLA-GP were biased in those situations, whereas GAM cannot estimate EVPPI for large parameter sets.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Fang & Zhenru Wang & Michael B. Giles & Chris H. Jackson & Nicky J. Welton & Christophe Andrieu & Howard Thom, 2022. "Multilevel and Quasi Monte Carlo Methods for the Calculation of the Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 168-181, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:2:p:168-181
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211026305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211026305
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211026305?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael B. Giles, 2008. "Multilevel Monte Carlo Path Simulation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(3), pages 607-617, June.
    2. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    3. Jason Madan & Anthony E. Ades & Malcolm Price & Kathryn Maitland & Julie Jemutai & Paul Revill & Nicky J. Welton, 2014. "Strategies for Efficient Computation of the Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(3), pages 327-342, April.
    4. A. E. Ades & G. Lu & K. Claxton, 2004. "Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations in Medical Decision Modeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(2), pages 207-227, March.
    5. Chang-Han Rhee & Peter W. Glynn, 2015. "Unbiased Estimation with Square Root Convergence for SDE Models," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1026-1043, October.
    6. Hawre Jalal & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Karen M. Kuntz, 2015. "Computing Expected Value of Partial Sample Information from Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Linear Regression Metamodeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 584-595, July.
    7. Alan Brennan & Samer Kharroubi & Anthony O'Hagan & Jim Chilcott, 2007. "Calculating Partial Expected Value of Perfect Information via Monte Carlo Sampling Algorithms," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(4), pages 448-470, July.
    8. Anna Heath & Ioanna Manolopoulou & Gianluca Baio, 2018. "Efficient Monte Carlo Estimation of the Expected Value of Sample Information Using Moment Matching," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(2), pages 163-173, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Heath, 2022. "Calculating Expected Value of Sample Information Adjusting for Imperfect Implementation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 626-636, July.
    2. Mathyn Vervaart & Eline Aas & Karl P. Claxton & Mark Strong & Nicky J. Welton & Torbjørn Wisløff & Anna Heath, 2023. "General-Purpose Methods for Simulating Survival Data for Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 595-609, July.
    3. Anna Heath & Mark Strong & David Glynn & Natalia Kunst & Nicky J. Welton & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert, 2022. "Simulating Study Data to Support Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations: A Tutorial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 143-155, February.
    4. Michael B. Giles & Abdul-Lateef Haji-Ali & Jonathan Spence, 2023. "Efficient Risk Estimation for the Credit Valuation Adjustment," Papers 2301.05886, arXiv.org.
    5. Michael B. Giles & Abdul-Lateef Haji-Ali, 2019. "Sub-sampling and other considerations for efficient risk estimation in large portfolios," Papers 1912.05484, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    6. Chao Zheng & Jiangtao Pan, 2023. "Unbiased estimators for the Heston model with stochastic interest rates," Papers 2301.12072, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    7. Oakley, Jeremy E. & Brennan, Alan & Tappenden, Paul & Chilcott, Jim, 2010. "Simulation sample sizes for Monte Carlo partial EVPI calculations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 468-477, May.
    8. Andrija S Grustam & Nasuh Buyukkaramikli & Ron Koymans & Hubertus J M Vrijhoef & Johan L Severens, 2019. "Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, June.
    9. Nabil Kahale, 2018. "General multilevel Monte Carlo methods for pricing discretely monitored Asian options," Papers 1805.09427, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2018.
    10. Nabil Kahalé, 2020. "Randomized Dimension Reduction for Monte Carlo Simulations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(3), pages 1421-1439, March.
    11. Cui, Zhenyu & Fu, Michael C. & Peng, Yijie & Zhu, Lingjiong, 2020. "Optimal unbiased estimation for expected cumulative discounted cost," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(2), pages 604-618.
    12. Tae Yoon Lee & Paul Gustafson & Mohsen Sadatsafavi, 2023. "Closed-Form Solution of the Unit Normal Loss Integral in 2 Dimensions, with Application in Value-of-Information Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 621-626, July.
    13. David Glynn & Georgios Nikolaidis & Dina Jankovic & Nicky J. Welton, 2023. "Constructing Relative Effect Priors for Research Prioritization and Trial Design: A Meta-epidemiological Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 553-563, July.
    14. Zhengqing Zhou & Guanyang Wang & Jose Blanchet & Peter W. Glynn, 2021. "Unbiased Optimal Stopping via the MUSE," Papers 2106.02263, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2022.
    15. Ruzayqat Hamza M. & Jasra Ajay, 2020. "Unbiased estimation of the solution to Zakai’s equation," Monte Carlo Methods and Applications, De Gruyter, vol. 26(2), pages 113-129, June.
    16. Anna Heath & Ioanna Manolopoulou & Gianluca Baio, 2017. "A Review of Methods for Analysis of the Expected Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(7), pages 747-758, October.
    17. Mathyn Vervaart & Mark Strong & Karl P. Claxton & Nicky J. Welton & Torbjørn Wisløff & Eline Aas, 2022. "An Efficient Method for Computing Expected Value of Sample Information for Survival Data from an Ongoing Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 612-625, July.
    18. Susan Griffin & Nicky J. Welton & Karl Claxton, 2010. "Exploring the Research Decision Space: The Expected Value of Information for Sequential Research Designs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(2), pages 155-162, March.
    19. A C Bouman & A J ten Cate-Hoek & B L T Ramaekers & M A Joore, 2015. "Sample Size Estimation for Non-Inferiority Trials: Frequentist Approach versus Decision Theory Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    20. Devang Sinha & Siddhartha P. Chakrabarty, 2022. "Multilevel Richardson-Romberg and Importance Sampling in Derivative Pricing," Papers 2209.00821, arXiv.org.

    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:42:y:2022:i:2:p:168-181. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.