Exploring the Performance of Methods to Deal Multicollinearity: Simulation and Real Data in Radiation Epidemiology Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of multicollinearity has long been acknowledged in statistical modelling; however, it is often untreated in the most of published papers. Indeed, the use of methods for multicollinearity correction is still scarce. One important reason is that despite many proposed methods, little is known about their strength or performance. We compare the statistical properties and performance of four main techniques to correct multicollinearity, i.e., Ridge Regression (R-R), Principal Components Regression (PC-R), Partial Least Squares Regression (PLS-R), and Lasso Regression (L-R), in both a simulation study and two real data examples used for modelling volumes of heart and Thyroid as a function of clinical and anthropometric parameters. We find that when the statistical approaches were used to address different levels of collinearity, we observed that R-R, PC-R and PLS-R appeared to have a somewhat similar behavior, with a slight advantage for the PLS-R. Indeed, in all implemented cases, the PLS-R always provided the smallest value of root mean square error (RMSE). When the degree of collinearity was moderate, low or very low, the L-R method had also somewhat similar performance to other methods. Furthermore, correction methods allowed us to provide stable and trustworthy parameter estimates for predictors in the modelling of heart and Thyroid volumes. Therefore, this work will contribute to highlighting performances of methods used only for situations ranging from low to very high multicollinearity.
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 | 0.025 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".