ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2016
Framework for making better predictions by directly estimating variables' predictivity.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Test-fairness deep learning with influence score.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- A fine-tuning enhanced RAG system with quantized influence measure as AI judge.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Machine learning reduces soft costs for residential solar photovoltaics.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Probabilistic Prediction of Nonadherence to Psychiatric Disorder Medication from Mental Health Forum Data: Developing and Validating Bayesian Machine Learning Classifiers.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
- Supporting Risk-Aware Use of Online Translation Tools in Delivering Mental Healthcare Services among Spanish-Speaking Populations.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2021Article
- Predictive analysis methods for human microbiome data with application to Parkinson's disease.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We propose approaching prediction from a framework grounded in the theoretical correct prediction rate of a variable set as a parameter of interest. This framework allows us to define a measure of predictivity that enables assessing variable sets for, preferably high, predictivity. We first define the prediction rate for a variable set and consider, and ultimately reject, the naive estimator, a statistic based on the observed sample data, due to its inflated bias for moderate sample size and its sensitivity to noisy useless variables. We demonstrate that the [Formula: see text]-score of the PR method of VS yields a relatively unbiased estimate of a parameter that is not sensitive to noisy variables and is a lower bound to the parameter of interest. Thus, the PR method using the [Formula: see text]-score provides an effective approach to selecting highly predictive variables. We offer simulations and an application of the [Formula: see text]-score on real data to demonstrate the statistic's predictive performance on sample data. We conjecture that using the partition retention and [Formula: see text]-score can aid in finding variable sets with promising prediction rates; however, further research in the avenue of sample-based measures of predictivity is much desired.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.