arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.35680

Does your cost-effectiveness model answer the question of interest? Marginal versus conditional inputs and transportability across populations

Jeroen P. Jansen·Harlan Campbell·Shannon Cope·David M Phillippo·Antonio Remiro-Azócar
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Objectives: There has been increased appreciation of the differences between marginal and conditional estimates and different types of effect measures regarding their applicability to different target populations. This issue of transportability is of concern in model-based cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) when treatment effects from (international) trials are applied to (country-specific) baseline risk estimates. The objective of this paper is to create awareness regarding the issues that arise when using different types of treatment effect and baseline risk estimates in a model-based CEA to inform health technology assessment (HTA). Methods: We clarify collapsibility, marginal versus conditional estimation, and transportability; derive the ideal modeling approach implied by a marginal cost-effectiveness estimand; and characterize the issues of common modeling approaches, illustrated with a fictitious state-transition model. Results: An individual-level simulation that predicts outcomes from conditional inputs and averages them over the target population targets the marginal cost-effectiveness estimand. Cohort-model approaches that marginalize inputs early, evaluate an outcome regression model at mean covariates, or combine a conditional effect with a marginal baseline (or vice versa) can misstate cost-effectiveness results even with correct-population inputs; inputs from the wrong population add further error. Conclusions: The most rigorous approach is an individual-level simulation that carries conditional inputs (baseline risk, treatment effect, prognostic effects and effect modifiers) and marginalizes late. Cohort approaches instead marginalize early, relying on aggregated inputs, and do not necessarily target the marginal cost-effectiveness estimand of interest for HTA. Model developers should document, for each input, whether it is marginal or conditional and its population.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEstat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jeroen P. Jansen, Harlan Campbell, Shannon Cope, David M Phillippo, Antonio Remiro-Azócar. 2026-09-28. Does your cost-effectiveness model answer the question of interest? Marginal versus conditional inputs and transportability across populations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.35680

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Univariate-Guided Interaction Modeling

We propose a procedure for sparse regression with pairwise interactions, by generalizing the Univariate Guided Sparse Regression (UniLasso) methodology. A central contribution is our introduction of TripletScan, which screens a pair $(j,k)$ using the coefficient of $X_jX_k$ in the local regression of the response on $1$, $X_j$, $X_k$, and $X_jX_k$. The retained products are incorporated either jointly with the main effects through UniLasso, yielding uniPairs, or after a first-stage main-effects fit, yielding uniPairs-2stage. For the UniLasso components of the procedures, we prove false-positive exclusion and uniform coefficient-error bounds. In simulations and an HIV drug-resistance application, the proposed procedures produce substantially smaller fitted models than competing interaction methods while retaining competitive predictive performance.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Factoring A-Optimality into D-Optimality and Sphericity

The D criterion measures the volume of the joint confidence ellipsoid for the linear model coefficients and ignores its shape, so designs with the same D value can estimate individual effects with different variances. Meanwhile, A-optimality minimizes average coefficient variance. With both criteria expressed as information values, A equals D multiplied by a sphericity index for the same ellipsoid. In a fixed coefficient basis, sphericity further factors into coefficient-variance balance and a determinant-based correlation component. In five published screening comparisons, the A-optimal design has a larger correlation component despite slightly poorer variance balance; in three it also has a smaller D value. In a seven-run family of designs that all tie under D, the two with equal coefficient variances have the lowest A value. Both sphericity components can be calculated directly from standard errors and estimate correlations available in statistical software. After whitening by a prediction moment matrix, the same determinant-sphericity factorization applies to the I-criterion.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Testing the equality of parameters in fixed and increasing dimension

This paper proposes a general and unified framework for testing the equality of a broad class of parameters, defined as a smooth function of expectations of symmetric kernels, across multiple independent populations. We consider two test statistics, a Wald-type statistic and an ANOVA-type statistic. The asymptotic distribution of the first one is derived under a fixed-dimension regime, whereas the second one is studied under both fixed and increasing-dimension regimes, where the parameter dimension diverges with the sample size. Based on these limiting distributions, we construct test procedures enabling asymptotically exact inference without parametric assumptions. Additionally, an alternative null distribution estimator based on a weighted bootstrap approximation is studied, which is applicable to the ANOVA-type statistic under a fixed-dimension regime. The finite-sample performance and computational efficiency of the proposed procedures are evaluated through an extensive simulation study and a real dataset application.

stat.ME↗