Building a better model: abandon kitchen sink regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper critically examines 'kitchen sink regression', a practice characterised by the manual or automated selection of variables for a multivariable regression model based on p values or model-based information criteria. We highlight the pitfalls of this method, using examples from perinatal/neonatal medicine, and propose more robust alternatives. The concept of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) is introduced as a tool for describing and analysing causal relationships. We highlight five key issues with 'kitchen sink regression': (1) the disregard for the directionality of variable relationships, (2) the lack of a meaningful causal interpretation of effect estimates from these models, (3) the inflated alpha error rate due to multiple testing, (4) the risk of overfitting and model instability and (5) the disregard for content expertise in model building. We advocate for the use of DAGs to guide variable selection for models that aim to examine associations between a putative risk factor and an outcome and emphasise the need for a more thoughtful and informed use of regression models in medical research.
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 | 0.023 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".