Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35883041›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Evaluating methods for Lasso selective inference in biomedical research: a comparative simulation study.

Michael Kammer, Daniela Dunkler, Stefan Michiels, Georg Heinze

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Temporalis muscle biomarkers from routine brain MRI and risk of dementia in two independent cohorts.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Michael KammerSection for Clinical Biometrics, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Daniela DunklerSection for Clinical Biometrics, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Stefan MichielsService de Biostatistique et d'Epidémiologie, Gustave Roussy, Oncostat U1018, INSERM, University Paris-Saclay, labeled Ligue Contre le Cancer, Villejuif, France.
Georg HeinzeSection for Clinical Biometrics, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. georg.heinze@meduniwien.ac.at.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF I 4739
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVariable selection for regression models plays a key role in the analysis of biomedical data. However, inference after selection is not covered by classical statistical frequentist theory, which assumes a fixed set of covariates in the model. This leads to over-optimistic selection and replicability issues.

methodsWe compared proposals for selective inference targeting the submodel parameters of the Lasso and its extension, the adaptive Lasso: sample splitting, selective inference conditional on the Lasso selection (SI), and universally valid post-selection inference (PoSI). We studied the properties of the proposed selective confidence intervals available via R software packages using a neutral simulation study inspired by real data commonly seen in biomedical studies. Furthermore, we present an exemplary application of these methods to a publicly available dataset to discuss their practical usability.

resultsFrequentist properties of selective confidence intervals by the SI method were generally acceptable, but the claimed selective coverage levels were not attained in all scenarios, in particular with the adaptive Lasso. The actual coverage of the extremely conservative PoSI method exceeded the nominal levels, and this method also required the greatest computational effort. Sample splitting achieved acceptable actual selective coverage levels, but the method is inefficient and leads to less accurate point estimates. The choice of inference method had a large impact on the resulting interval estimates, thereby necessitating that the user is acutely aware of the goal of inference in order to interpret and communicate the results.

conclusionsDespite violating nominal coverage levels in some scenarios, selective inference conditional on the Lasso selection is our recommended approach for most cases. If simplicity is strongly favoured over efficiency, then sample splitting is an alternative. If only few predictors undergo variable selection (i.e. up to 5) or the avoidance of false positive claims of significance is a concern, then the conservative approach of PoSI may be useful. For the adaptive Lasso, SI should be avoided and only PoSI and sample splitting are recommended. In summary, we find selective inference useful to assess the uncertainties in the importance of individual selected predictors for future applications.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchComputer SimulationHumansLinear modelPenalized regressionSelective inferenceSimulation studyVariable selection

Identifiers

PMID35883041
PMCPMC9316707

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.