MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7087679686 · doi:10.1016/j.jcmds.2025.100127

Broken adaptive ridge method for variable selection in generalized partly linear models with application to the coronary artery disease data

2025· article· en· W7087679686 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Mathematics and Data Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting Theory and Financial Reporting
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Coordinating CommitteeNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of MinnesotaUniversity of CalgaryCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsGeneralized linear modelModel selectionFeature selectionLinear modelContext (archaeology)RidgeLinear regressionVariable (mathematics)Covariate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivated by the CATHGEN data, we develop a new statistical method for simultaneous variable selection and parameter estimation in the context of generalized partly linear models for data with high-dimensional covariates. The method is referred to as the broken adaptive ridge (BAR) estimator, which is an approximation of the -penalized regression by iteratively performing reweighted squared -penalized regression. The generalized partly linear model extends the generalized linear model by incorporating a non-parametric component, allowing for the construction of a flexible model to capture various types of covariate effects. We employ the Bernstein polynomials as the sieve space to approximate the non-parametric functions so that our method can be implemented easily using the existing R packages. Extensive simulation studies suggest that the proposed method performs better than other commonly used penalty-based variable selection methods. We apply the method to the CATHGEN data with a binary response from a coronary artery disease study, which motivated our research, and obtained new findings in both high-dimensional genetic and low-dimensional non-genetic covariates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Mathematics and Data ScienceSame topicAccounting Theory and Financial ReportingFrench-language works237,207