A Systematic Categorization of Performance Measures for Estimated Non‐Linear Associations Between an Outcome and Continuous Predictors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In regression analysis, associations between continuous predictors and the outcome are often assumed to be linear. However, modeling the associations as non‐linear can improve model fit. Many flexible modeling techniques, like (fractional) polynomials and spline‐based approaches, are available. Such methods can be systematically compared in simulation studies, which require suitable performance measures to evaluate the accuracy of the estimated curves against the true data‐generating functions. Although various measures have been proposed in the literature, no systematic overview exists so far. To fill this gap, we introduce a categorization of performance measures for evaluating estimated non‐linear associations between an outcome and continuous predictors. This categorization includes many commonly used measures. The measures can not only be used in simulation studies, but also in application studies to compare different estimates to each other. We further illustrate and compare the behavior of different performance measures through some examples and a Shiny app. This article is categorized under: Statistical and Graphical Methods of Data Analysis > Modeling Methods and Algorithms
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 | 0.053 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".