Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26514699›Full record

ReviewStatistics in medicine2016

Review and evaluation of penalised regression methods for risk prediction in low-dimensional data with few events.

Menelaos Pavlou, Gareth Ambler, Shaun Seaman, Maria De Iorio, Rumana Z Omar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Statistics in medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 192 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
192citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

192 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Prognostic variables and scores identifying the end of life in COPD: a systematic review.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The young researcher's guide to moderator variables.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

132 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Menelaos PavlouDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, U.K.
Gareth AmblerDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, U.K.
Shaun SeamanMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, U.K.
Maria De IorioDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, U.K.
Rumana Z OmarDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, U.K.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105260558Medical Research Council MR/J013692/1Medical Research Council U1052 60558
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk prediction models are used to predict a clinical outcome for patients using a set of predictors. We focus on predicting low-dimensional binary outcomes typically arising in epidemiology, health services and public health research where logistic regression is commonly used. When the number of events is small compared with the number of regression coefficients, model overfitting can be a serious problem. An overfitted model tends to demonstrate poor predictive accuracy when applied to new data. We review frequentist and Bayesian shrinkage methods that may alleviate overfitting by shrinking the regression coefficients towards zero (some methods can also provide more parsimonious models by omitting some predictors). We evaluated their predictive performance in comparison with maximum likelihood estimation using real and simulated data. The simulation study showed that maximum likelihood estimation tends to produce overfitted models with poor predictive performance in scenarios with few events, and penalised methods can offer improvement. Ridge regression performed well, except in scenarios with many noise predictors. Lasso performed better than ridge in scenarios with many noise predictors and worse in the presence of correlated predictors. Elastic net, a hybrid of the two, performed well in all scenarios. Adaptive lasso and smoothly clipped absolute deviation performed best in scenarios with many noise predictors; in other scenarios, their performance was inferior to that of ridge and lasso. Bayesian approaches performed well when the hyperparameters for the priors were chosen carefully. Their use may aid variable selection, and they can be easily extended to clustered-data settings and to incorporate external information.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalRegression AnalysisBayes TheoremBiasBiostatisticsComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLikelihood FunctionsLogistic ModelsMalePenile NeoplasmsPrognosisRisk FactorsBayesian regularisationoverfittingrare eventsshrinkage

Identifiers

PMID26514699
PMCPMC4982098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.