Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39121055›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Evaluating variable selection methods for multivariable regression models: A simulation study protocol.

Theresa Ullmann, Georg Heinze, Lorena Hafermann, Christine Schilhart-Wallisch, Daniela Dunkler, for TG2 of the STRATOS initiative

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Epidemiology and risk factors for endoparasite infection in subtropical feral cattle in Hong Kong.International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

Theresa UllmannInstitute of Clinical Biometrics, Center for Medical Data Science, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1215-8561
Georg HeinzeInstitute of Clinical Biometrics, Center for Medical Data Science, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Lorena HafermannInstitute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Christine Schilhart-WallischInstitute of Clinical Biometrics, Center for Medical Data Science, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3943-6234
Daniela DunklerInstitute of Clinical Biometrics, Center for Medical Data Science, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1339-0311
for TG2 of the STRATOS initiative

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF I 4739
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers often perform data-driven variable selection when modeling the associations between an outcome and multiple independent variables in regression analysis. Variable selection may improve the interpretability, parsimony and/or predictive accuracy of a model. Yet variable selection can also have negative consequences, such as false exclusion of important variables or inclusion of noise variables, biased estimation of regression coefficients, underestimated standard errors and invalid confidence intervals, as well as model instability. While the potential advantages and disadvantages of variable selection have been discussed in the literature for decades, few large-scale simulation studies have neutrally compared data-driven variable selection methods with respect to their consequences for the resulting models. We present the protocol for a simulation study that will evaluate different variable selection methods: forward selection, stepwise forward selection, backward elimination, augmented backward elimination, univariable selection, univariable selection followed by backward elimination, and penalized likelihood approaches (Lasso, relaxed Lasso, adaptive Lasso). These methods will be compared with respect to false inclusion and/or exclusion of variables, consequences on bias and variance of the estimated regression coefficients, the validity of the confidence intervals for the coefficients, the accuracy of the estimated variable importance ranking, and the predictive performance of the selected models. We consider both linear and logistic regression in a low-dimensional setting (20 independent variables with 10 true predictors and 10 noise variables). The simulation will be based on real-world data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Publishing this study protocol ahead of performing the simulation increases transparency and allows integrating the perspective of other experts into the study design.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationHumansMultivariate AnalysisRegression Analysis

Identifiers

PMID39121055
PMCPMC11315300

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.