Using the bootstrap to improve estimation and confidence intervals for regression coefficients selected using backwards variable elimination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applied researchers frequently use automated model selection methods, such as backwards variable elimination, to develop parsimonious regression models. Statisticians have criticized the use of these methods for several reasons, amongst them are the facts that the estimated regression coefficients are biased and that the derived confidence intervals do not have the advertised coverage rates. We developed a method to improve estimation of regression coefficients and confidence intervals which employs backwards variable elimination in multiple bootstrap samples. In a given bootstrap sample, predictor variables that are not selected for inclusion in the final regression model have their regression coefficient set to zero. Regression coefficients are averaged across the bootstrap samples, and non-parametric percentile bootstrap confidence intervals are then constructed for each regression coefficient. We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations to examine the performance of this method for estimating regression coefficients and constructing confidence intervals for variables selected using backwards variable elimination. We demonstrated that this method results in confidence intervals with superior coverage compared with those developed from conventional backwards variable elimination. We illustrate the utility of our method by applying it to a large sample of subjects hospitalized with a heart attack.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.341 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".