ArticlePloS one2018
Comparison of the modified unbounded penalty and the LASSO to select predictive genes of response to chemotherapy in breast cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer in Patients with Symptoms.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Prognostic prediction by a novel integrative inflammatory and nutritional score based on least absolute shrinkage and selection operator in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Covariate selection is a fundamental step when building sparse prediction models in order to avoid overfitting and to gain a better interpretation of the classifier without losing its predictive accuracy. In practice the LASSO regression of Tibshirani, which penalizes the likelihood of the model by the L1 norm of the regression coefficients, has become the gold-standard to reach these objectives. Recently Lee and Oh developed a novel random-effect covariate selection method called the modified unbounded penalty (MUB) regression, whose penalization function can equal minus infinity at 0 in order to produce very sparse models. We sought to compare the predictive accuracy and the number of covariates selected by these two methods in several high-dimensional datasets, consisting in genes expressions measured to predict response to chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. These comparisons were performed by building the Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curves of the classifiers obtained with the selected genes and by comparing their area under the ROC curve (AUC) corrected for optimism using several variants of bootstrap internal validation and cross-validation. We found consistently in all datasets that the MUB penalization selected a remarkably smaller number of covariates than the LASSO while offering a similar-and encouraging-predictive accuracy. The models selected by the MUB were actually nested in the ones obtained with the LASSO. Similar findings were observed when comparing these results to those obtained in their first publication by other authors or when using the area under the Precision-Recall curve (AUCPR) as another measure of predictive performance. In conclusion, the MUB penalization seems therefore to be one of the best options when sparsity is required in high-dimension. Further investigation in other datasets is however required to validate these findings.
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.