ArticleThe New England Journal of Statistics in Data Science2023
Effects of stopping criterion on the growth of trees in regression random forests.
Article in The New England Journal of Statistics in Data Science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- From biomechanical mechanisms to clinical reasoning: Deciphering mechanobiological drivers of aortic valve calcification for precision therapy.Mechanobiology in medicine · 2026Review
- Machine learning techniques for the prediction of indoor gamma-ray dose rates - Strengths, weaknesses and implications for epidemiology.Journal of environmental radioactivity · 2025Article
- A Historical Survey of Key Epidemiological Studies of Ionizing Radiation Exposure.Radiation research · 2024Review
- Alternative stopping rules to limit tree expansion for random forest models.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Summary of Radiation Research Society Online 66th Annual Meeting, Symposium on "Epidemiology: Updates on epidemiological low dose studies," including discussion.International journal of radiation biology · 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
Abstract
Random forests are a powerful machine learning tool that capture complex relationships between independent variables and an outcome of interest. Trees built in a random forest are dependent on several hyperparameters, one of the more critical being the node size. The original algorithm of Breiman, controls for node size by limiting the size of the parent node, so that a node cannot be split if it has less than a specified number of observations. We propose that this hyperparameter should instead be defined as the minimum number of observations in each terminal node. The two existing random forest approaches are compared in the regression context based on estimated generalization error, bias-squared, and variance of resulting predictions in a number of simulated datasets. Additionally the two approaches are applied to type 2 diabetes data obtained from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. We have developed a straightforward method for incorporating weights into the random forest analysis of survey data. Our results demonstrate that generalization error under the proposed approach is competitive to that attained from the original random forest approach when data have large random error variability. The R code created from this work is available and includes an illustration.
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.