ArticleStatistics in medicine2025
A Simple Information Criterion for Variable Selection in High-Dimensional Regression.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-dimensional regression problems, for example with genomic or drug exposure data, typically involve automated selection of a sparse set of regressors. Penalized regression methods like the LASSO can deliver a family of candidate sparse models. To select one, there are criteria balancing log-likelihood and model size, the most common being AIC and BIC. These two methods do not take into account the implicit multiple testing performed when selecting variables in a high-dimensional regression, which makes them too liberal. We propose the extended AIC (EAIC), a new information criterion for sparse model selection in high-dimensional regressions. It allows for asymptotic FWER control when the candidate regressors are independent. It is based on a simple formula involving model log-likelihood, model size, the total number of candidate regressors, and the FWER target. In a simulation study over a wide range of linear and logistic regression settings, we assessed the variable selection performance of the EAIC and of other information criteria (including some that also use the number of candidate regressors: mBIC, mAIC, and EBIC) in conjunction with the LASSO. Our method controls the FWER in nearly all settings, in contrast to the AIC and BIC, which produce many false positives. We also illustrate it for the automated signal detection of adverse drug reactions on the French pharmacovigilance spontaneous reporting database.
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.