ArticleScientific reports2021
Model selection for inferential models with high dimensional data: synthesis and graphical representation of multiple techniques.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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.
- Variable selection methods for descriptive modeling.PloS one · 2025Article
- A Comparative Analysis of XGBoost and Neural Network Models for Predicting Some Tomato Fruit Quality Traits from Environmental and Meteorological Data.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Predicting lameness in dairy cattle using untargeted liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-based metabolomics and machine learning.Journal of dairy science · 2023Article
- SerumJournal of dairy science · 2023Article
- Article
- Multiple model triangulation to identify factors associated with lameness in British sheep flocks.Preventive veterinary medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inferential research commonly involves identification of causal factors from within high dimensional data but selection of the 'correct' variables can be problematic. One specific problem is that results vary depending on statistical method employed and it has been argued that triangulation of multiple methods is advantageous to safely identify the correct, important variables. To date, no formal method of triangulation has been reported that incorporates both model stability and coefficient estimates; in this paper we develop an adaptable, straightforward method to achieve this. Six methods of variable selection were evaluated using simulated datasets of different dimensions with known underlying relationships. We used a bootstrap methodology to combine stability matrices across methods and estimate aggregated coefficient distributions. Novel graphical approaches provided a transparent route to visualise and compare results between methods. The proposed aggregated method provides a flexible route to formally triangulate results across any chosen number of variable selection methods and provides a combined result that incorporates uncertainty arising from between-method variability. In these simulated datasets, the combined method generally performed as well or better than the individual methods, with low error rates and clearer demarcation of the true causal variables than for the individual methods.
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.