Variable Screening Methods in Conditional Logistic Individual Level Models of Disease Spread
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".