MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414159953 · doi:10.1016/j.sste.2025.100742

Variable Screening Methods in Conditional Logistic Individual Level Models of Disease Spread

2025· article· en· W4414159953 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta InnovatesUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsOverfittingAkaike information criterionFeature selectionLogistic regressionInformation CriteriaVariable (mathematics)Selection (genetic algorithm)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conditional logistic individual-level model is a recently developed infectious disease model, particularly suited for modeling spatial-based infection risk. It is designed to reduce computational complexity and expand the range of available statistical software for data analysis (Akter & Deardon, 2025). This study aims to apply and evaluate different variable selection techniques for the newly introduced conditional logistic individual-level models (CL-ILMs). These variable selection methods include forward and backward stepwise Akaike information criterion (AIC), least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso), spike-and-slab prior (SS prior), and two-stage screening methods. The ultimate goal is to boost model performance and interpretability, and to reduce the risk of overfitting ultimately leading to more robust and effective models. We examine and compare the performance of these methods using simulated data and real-life data from the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the UK in 2001. • This study proposes novel variable screening methods for spatial CL-ILMs. • We explore stepwise AIC, Lasso, spike-and-slab, and two-stage prescreening methods. • We assess variable selection methods using simulated datasets and real-world data. • Overall, Lasso showed lower accuracy, while spike-and-slab priors performed better. • This aligns with ILM results (Akter & Deardon, 2023), where spike-and-slab was best.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.324
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.145 · 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