Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39056962›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Bootstrap Approximation of Model Selection Probabilities for Multimodel Inference Frameworks.

Andres Dajles, Joseph Cavanaugh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Andres DajlesDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Iowa, 145 N. Riverside Drive, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3348-4107
Joseph CavanaughDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Iowa, 145 N. Riverside Drive, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0514-7664

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most statistical modeling applications involve the consideration of a candidate collection of models based on various sets of explanatory variables. The candidate models may also differ in terms of the structural formulations for the systematic component and the posited probability distributions for the random component. A common practice is to use an information criterion to select a model from the collection that provides an optimal balance between fidelity to the data and parsimony. The analyst then typically proceeds as if the chosen model was the only model ever considered. However, such a practice fails to account for the variability inherent in the model selection process, which can lead to inappropriate inferential results and conclusions. In recent years, inferential methods have been proposed for multimodel frameworks that attempt to provide an appropriate accounting of modeling uncertainty. In the frequentist paradigm, such methods should ideally involve model selection probabilities, i.e., the relative frequencies of selection for each candidate model based on repeated sampling. Model selection probabilities can be conveniently approximated through bootstrapping. When the Akaike information criterion is employed, Akaike weights are also commonly used as a surrogate for selection probabilities. In this work, we show that the conventional bootstrap approach for approximating model selection probabilities is impacted by bias. We propose a simple correction to adjust for this bias. We also argue that Akaike weights do not provide adequate approximations for selection probabilities, although they do provide a crude gauge of model plausibility.

Indexed as

Akaike information criterionAkaike weightsBayesian model averagingbootstrappingmodel selection

Identifiers

PMID39056962
PMCPMC11276419

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.