Prediction of Depression in Cancer Patients With Different Classification Criteria, Linear Discriminant Analysis versus Logistic Regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Logistic regression (LR) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) are two popular statistical models for prediction of group membership. Although they are very similar, the LDA makes more assumptions about the data. When categorical and continuous variables used simultaneously, the optimal choice between the two models is questionable. In most studies, classification error (CE) is used to discriminate between subjects in several groups, but this index is not suitable to predict the accuracy of the outcome. The present study compared LR and LDA models using classification indices. METHODS: This cross-sectional study selected 243 cancer patients. Sample sets of different sizes (n = 50, 100, 150, 200, 220) were randomly selected and the CE, B, and Q classification indices were calculated by the LR and LDA models. RESULTS: CE revealed the a lack of superiority for one model over the other, but the results showed that LR performed better than LDA for the B and Q indices in all situations. No significant effect for sample size on CE was noted for selection of an optimal model. Assessment of the accuracy of prediction of real data indicated that the B and Q indices are appropriate for selection of an optimal model. CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that LR performs better in some cases and LDA in others when based on CE. The CE index is not appropriate for classification, although the B and Q indices performed better and offered more efficient criteria for comparison and discrimination between groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".