You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is probably not a bug, but a result of which model calculation method is used.
While model_time is always an integer, state_time assumes half-cycle values when the method = "life-table" parameter is used with run_model (state_time = 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 etc). In contrast, state_time assumes integer values when method = "begin" (2, 3, 4...) or method = "end" (1, 2, 3...) parameters are used.
This was slightly counter-intuitive given an integer evaluation used in the original paper by Filipovi´c-Pierucci and Zarca, i.e. (p. 6):
It would help immensely to add the parameter options of method = ... to the run_model section of the heemod reference manual, along with their impact on the state_time variable.
Thanks for an excellent package!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This is probably not a bug, but a result of which model calculation method is used.
While model_time is always an integer, state_time assumes half-cycle values when the method = "life-table" parameter is used with run_model (state_time = 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 etc). In contrast, state_time assumes integer values when method = "begin" (2, 3, 4...) or method = "end" (1, 2, 3...) parameters are used.
This was slightly counter-intuitive given an integer evaluation used in the original paper by Filipovi´c-Pierucci and Zarca, i.e. (p. 6):
R> par_mod <- modify(
R+ par_mod,
R+
R+ cost_surg = 20000,
R+ cost_surg_cycle = ifelse(state_time == 1, cost_surg, 0))
It would help immensely to add the parameter options of method = ... to the run_model section of the heemod reference manual, along with their impact on the state_time variable.
Thanks for an excellent package!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: