Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33302880›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Variable selection in social-environmental data: sparse regression and tree ensemble machine learning approaches.

Elizabeth Handorf, Yinuo Yin, Michael Slifker, Shannon Lynch

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 90% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elizabeth HandorfBiostatistics and Bioinformatics Facility, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Reimann 383, 333 Cottman Ave, Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA. Elizabeth.Handorf@fccc.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0445-8978
Yinuo YinCancer Prevention and Control, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Young Pavilion, 333 Cottman Ave, Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA.
Michael SlifkerBiostatistics and Bioinformatics Facility, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Reimann 383, 333 Cottman Ave, Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA.
Shannon LynchCancer Prevention and Control, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Young Pavilion, 333 Cottman Ave, Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA.
Fox Chase Cancer Center · US

Funding

TUFCCC/HC Regional Comprehensive Cancer Health PartnershipU54CA221705 · NCI · TEMPLE UNIV OF THE COMMONWEALTH · PI Joel Erblich, Jennifer S Ford · 2018 to 2026
$16.3M
TUFCCC/HC Regional Comprehensive Cancer Health PartnershipU54CA221704 · NCI · HUNTER COLLEGE · PI Joel Erblich · 2018 to 2026
$10.6M
American Cancer Society IRG-92-027-20American Cancer Society MRSG CPHPS-130319NCI NIH HHS P30 CA00692NCI NIH HHS U54 CA221704NCI NIH HHS U54 CA221705NIH HHS U54 CA221705
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial-environmental data obtained from the US Census is an important resource for understanding health disparities, but rarely is the full dataset utilized for analysis. A barrier to incorporating the full data is a lack of solid recommendations for variable selection, with researchers often hand-selecting a few variables. Thus, we evaluated the ability of empirical machine learning approaches to identify social-environmental factors having a true association with a health outcome.

methodsWe compared several popular machine learning methods, including penalized regressions (e.g. lasso, elastic net), and tree ensemble methods. Via simulation, we assessed the methods' ability to identify census variables truly associated with binary and continuous outcomes while minimizing false positive results (10 true associations, 1000 total variables). We applied the most promising method to the full census data (p = 14,663 variables) linked to prostate cancer registry data (n = 76,186 cases) to identify social-environmental factors associated with advanced prostate cancer.

resultsIn simulations, we found that elastic net identified many true-positive variables, while lasso provided good control of false positives. Using a combined measure of accuracy, hierarchical clustering based on Spearman's correlation with sparse group lasso regression performed the best overall. Bayesian Adaptive Regression Trees outperformed other tree ensemble methods, but not the sparse group lasso. In the full dataset, the sparse group lasso successfully identified a subset of variables, three of which replicated earlier findings.

conclusionsThis analysis demonstrated the potential of empirical machine learning approaches to identify a small subset of census variables having a true association with the outcome, and that replicate across empiric methods. Sparse clustered regression models performed best, as they identified many true positive variables while controlling false positive discoveries.

Indexed as

Machine LearningBayes TheoremComputer SimulationHumansMaleSocial environmentVariable selection

Identifiers

PMID33302880
PMCPMC7727197
OpenAlexW3082729803

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.