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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Østergård, Torben & Jensen, Rasmus Lund & Maagaard, Steffen Enersen, 2018. "A comparison of six metamodeling techniques applied to building performance simulations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 89-103.
    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. Wang, Ran & Lu, Shilei & Feng, Wei, 2020. "A three-stage optimization methodology for envelope design of passive house considering energy demand, thermal comfort and cost," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    2. Abokersh, Mohamed Hany & Vallès, Manel & Cabeza, Luisa F. & Boer, Dieter, 2020. "A framework for the optimal integration of solar assisted district heating in different urban sized communities: A robust machine learning approach incorporating global sensitivity analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).
    3. Wang, Ran & Lu, Shilei & Feng, Wei, 2020. "A novel improved model for building energy consumption prediction based on model integration," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    4. Mostafa M. Saad & Ramanunni Parakkal Menon & Ursula Eicker, 2023. "Supporting Decision Making for Building Decarbonization: Developing Surrogate Models for Multi-Criteria Building Retrofitting Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-28, August.
    5. Prada, A. & Gasparella, A. & Baggio, P., 2018. "On the performance of meta-models in building design optimization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 814-826.
    6. Singh, Manav Mahan & Singaravel, Sundaravelpandian & Geyer, Philipp, 2021. "Machine learning for early stage building energy prediction: Increment and enrichment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    7. Zhan, Jin & He, Wenjing & Huang, Jianxiang, 2024. "Comfort, carbon emissions, and cost of building envelope and photovoltaic arrangement optimization through a two-stage model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 356(C).
    8. Mert Edali & Gönenç Yücel, 2020. "Analysis of an individual‐based influenza epidemic model using random forest metamodels and adaptive sequential sampling," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 936-958, November.
    9. Kaseb, Z. & Montazeri, H., 2022. "Data-driven optimization of building-integrated ducted openings for wind energy harvesting: Sensitivity analysis of metamodels," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    10. Tronchin, Lamberto & Manfren, Massimiliano & James, Patrick AB., 2018. "Linking design and operation performance analysis through model calibration: Parametric assessment on a Passive House building," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PA), pages 26-40.
    11. Wate, P. & Iglesias, M. & Coors, V. & Robinson, D., 2020. "Framework for emulation and uncertainty quantification of a stochastic building performance simulator," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    12. Noye, Sarah & Mulero Martinez, Rubén & Carnieletto, Laura & De Carli, Michele & Castelruiz Aguirre, Amaia, 2022. "A review of advanced ground source heat pump control: Artificial intelligence for autonomous and adaptive control," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    13. Guglielmina Mutani & Pamela Vocale & Kavan Javanroodi, 2023. "Toward Improved Urban Building Energy Modeling Using a Place-Based Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-17, May.
    14. Massimiliano Manfren & Benedetto Nastasi, 2020. "Parametric Performance Analysis and Energy Model Calibration Workflow Integration—A Scalable Approach for Buildings," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-14, February.
    15. Sean Hay Kim & Jungmin Nam, 2020. "Can Both the Economic Value and Energy Performance of Small- and Mid-Sized Buildings Be Satisfied? Development of a Design Expert System in the Context of Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-29, June.
    16. Walery Jezierski & Adam Święcicki & Anna Justyna Werner-Juszczuk, 2024. "Deterministic Mathematical Model of Energy Demand of Single-Family Building with Different Parameters and Orientation of Windows in Climatic Conditions of Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-19, May.
    17. Yizhe Xu & Chengchu Yan & Hao Qian & Liang Sun & Gang Wang & Yanlong Jiang, 2021. "A Novel Optimization Method for Conventional Primary and Secondary School Classrooms in Southern China Considering Energy Demand, Thermal Comfort and Daylighting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-19, November.
    18. Gonçalo Roque Araújo & Ricardo Gomes & Maria Glória Gomes & Manuel Correia Guedes & Paulo Ferrão, 2023. "Surrogate Models for Efficient Multi-Objective Optimization of Building Performance," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-13, May.
    19. Westermann, Paul & Welzel, Matthias & Evins, Ralph, 2020. "Using a deep temporal convolutional network as a building energy surrogate model that spans multiple climate zones," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    20. Massimiliano Manfren & Maurizio Sibilla & Lamberto Tronchin, 2021. "Energy Modelling and Analytics in the Built Environment—A Review of Their Role for Energy Transitions in the Construction Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-29, January.

    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.

    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.