MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409666915 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236067

Variable selection in multivariate multiple regression

2020· article· en· W2409666915 on OpenAlexaff
Asokan Mulayath Variyath, Anita Brobbey

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovariateFeature selectionStatisticsMultivariate statisticsMathematicsMonte Carlo methodModel selectionGeneralized linear modelBayesian information criterionLasso (programming language)InferenceComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In many practical situations, we are interested in the effect of covariates on correlated multiple responses. In this paper, we focus on estimation and variable selection in multi-response multiple regression models. Correlation among the response variables must be modeled for valid inference. METHOD: We used an extension of the generalized estimating equation (GEE) methodology to simultaneously analyze binary, count, and continuous outcomes with nonlinear functions. Variable selection plays an important role in modeling correlated responses because of the large number of model parameters that must be estimated. We propose a penalized-likelihood approach based on the extended GEEs for simultaneous parameter estimation and variable selection. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations to investigate the performance of our method, considering different sample sizes and numbers of response variables. The results showed that our method works well compared to treating the responses as uncorrelated. We recommend using an unstructured correlation model with the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) to select the tuning parameters. We demonstrated our method using data from a concrete slump test.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.290
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.099 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207