↓ Skip to main content

Computing Expected Value of Partial Sample Information from Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Linear Regression Metamodeling

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Decision Making, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Computing Expected Value of Partial Sample Information from Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Linear Regression Metamodeling
Published in
Medical Decision Making, April 2015
DOI 10.1177/0272989x15578125
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hawre Jalal, Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert, Karen M Kuntz

Abstract

Decision makers often desire both guidance on the most cost-effective interventions given current knowledge and also the value of collecting additional information to improve the decisions made (i.e., from value of information [VOI] analysis). Unfortunately, VOI analysis remains underused due to the conceptual, mathematical, and computational challenges of implementing Bayesian decision-theoretic approaches in models of sufficient complexity for real-world decision making. In this study, we propose a novel practical approach for conducting VOI analysis using a combination of probabilistic sensitivity analysis, linear regression metamodeling, and unit normal loss integral function-a parametric approach to VOI analysis. We adopt a linear approximation and leverage a fundamental assumption of VOI analysis, which requires that all sources of prior uncertainties be accurately specified. We provide examples of the approach and show that the assumptions we make do not induce substantial bias but greatly reduce the computational time needed to perform VOI analysis. Our approach avoids the need to analytically solve or approximate joint Bayesian updating, requires only one set of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations, and can be applied in models with correlated input parameters.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 8%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 46 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Master 7 14%
Professor 6 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 10%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 25%
Decision Sciences 6 12%
Engineering 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 8%
Other 14 27%
Unknown 6 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2015.
All research outputs
#15,329,087
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Medical Decision Making
#1,111
of 1,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,515
of 264,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Decision Making
#26
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,246 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.