A review of spline function procedures in R
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With progress on both the theoretical and the computational fronts the use of spline modelling has become an established tool in statistical regression analysis. An important issue in spline modelling is the availability of user friendly, well documented software packages. Following the idea of the STRengthening Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies initiative to provide users with guidance documents on the application of statistical methods in observational research, the aim of this article is to provide an overview of the most widely used spline-based techniques and their implementation in R. METHODS: In this work, we focus on the R Language for Statistical Computing which has become a hugely popular statistics software. We identified a set of packages that include functions for spline modelling within a regression framework. Using simulated and real data we provide an introduction to spline modelling and an overview of the most popular spline functions. RESULTS: We present a series of simple scenarios of univariate data, where different basis functions are used to identify the correct functional form of an independent variable. Even in simple data, using routines from different packages would lead to different results. CONCLUSIONS: This work illustrate challenges that an analyst faces when working with data. Most differences can be attributed to the choice of hyper-parameters rather than the basis used. In fact an experienced user will know how to obtain a reasonable outcome, regardless of the type of spline used. However, many analysts do not have sufficient knowledge to use these powerful tools adequately and will need more guidance.
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 | 0.015 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.015 |
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".