ArticleStatistics in medicine2023
Feature-specific inference for penalized regression using local false discovery rates.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond the single-outcome approach: A comparison of outcome-wide analysis methods for exposome research.Environment international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Penalized regression methods such as the lasso are a popular approach to analyzing high-dimensional data. One attractive property of the lasso is that it naturally performs variable selection. An important area of concern, however, is the reliability of these selections. Motivated by local false discovery rate methodology from the large-scale hypothesis testing literature, we propose a method for calculating a local false discovery rate for each variable under consideration by the lasso model. These rates can be used to assess the reliability of an individual feature, or to estimate the model's overall false discovery rate. The method can be used for any level of regularization. This is particularly useful for models with a few highly significant features but a high overall false discovery rate, a relatively common occurrence when using cross validation to select a model. It is also flexible enough to be applied to many varieties of penalized likelihoods including generalized linear models and Cox regression, and a variety of penalties, including the minimax concave penalty (MCP) and smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD) penalty. We demonstrate the validity of this approach and contrast it with other inferential methods for penalized regression as well as with local false discovery rates for univariate hypothesis tests. Finally, we show the practical utility of our method by applying it to a case study involving gene expression in breast cancer patients.
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.