MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954389833 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.00786

State of the art in selection of variables and functional forms in multivariable analysis—outstanding issues

2019· preprint· en· W2954389833 on OpenAlexaff
Willi Sauerbrei, Aris Perperoglou, Matthias Schmid, Michał Abrahamowicz, Heiko Becher, Harald Binder, Daniela Dunkler, Frank E. Harrell, Patrick Royston, Georg Heinze

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Statistical Modeling Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMultivariable calculusSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceVariable (mathematics)VariablesManagement scienceFeature selectionArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: How to select variables and identify functional forms for continuous variables is a key concern when creating a multivariable model. Ad hoc 'traditional' approaches to variable selection have been in use for at least 50 years. Similarly, methods for determining functional forms for continuous variables were first suggested many years ago. More recently, many alternative approaches to address these two challenges have been proposed, but knowledge of their properties and meaningful comparisons between them are scarce. To define a state of the art and to provide evidence-supported guidance to researchers who have only a basic level of statistical knowledge, many outstanding issues in multivariable modelling remain. Our main aims are to identify and illustrate such gaps in the literature and present them at a moderate technical level to the wide community of practitioners, researchers and students of statistics. METHODS: We briefly discuss general issues in building descriptive regression models, strategies for variable selection, different ways of choosing functional forms for continuous variables and methods for combining the selection of variables and functions. We discuss two examples, taken from the medical literature, to illustrate problems in the practice of modelling. RESULTS: Our overview revealed that there is not yet enough evidence on which to base recommendations for the selection of variables and functional forms in multivariable analysis. Such evidence may come from comparisons between alternative methods. In particular, we highlight seven important topics that require further investigation and make suggestions for the direction of further research. CONCLUSIONS: Selection of variables and of functional forms are important topics in multivariable analysis. To define a state of the art and to provide evidence-supported guidance to researchers who have only a basic level of statistical knowledge, further comparative research is required.

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)0.154
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.253
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1540.253
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.014
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0080.005
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAdvanced Statistical Modeling TechniquesFrench-language works237,207