Bayesian approaches to variable selection: a comparative study from practical perspectives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many clinical studies, researchers are interested in parsimonious models that simultaneously achieve consistent variable selection and optimal prediction. The resulting parsimonious models will facilitate meaningful biological interpretation and scientific findings. Variable selection via Bayesian inference has been receiving significant advancement in recent years. Despite its increasing popularity, there is limited practical guidance for implementing these Bayesian approaches and evaluating their comparative performance in clinical datasets. In this paper, we review several commonly used Bayesian approaches to variable selection, with emphasis on application and implementation through R software. These approaches can be roughly categorized into four classes: namely the Bayesian model selection, spike-and-slab priors, shrinkage priors, and the hybrid of both. To evaluate their variable selection performance under various scenarios, we compare these four classes of approaches using real and simulated datasets. These results provide practical guidance to researchers who are interested in applying Bayesian approaches for the purpose of variable selection.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it