Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40062620›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025

A comparison of random forest variable selection methods for regression modeling of continuous outcomes.

Nathaniel S O'Connell, Byron C Jaeger, Garrett S Bullock, Jaime Lynn Speiser

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Development and Validation of Machine-Learning-Based Prediction Models for Thyroid Diseases During Pregnancy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Frontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

4 authors.

Nathaniel S O'ConnellDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, United States.
Byron C JaegerDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, United States.
Garrett S BullockDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, United States.
Jaime Lynn SpeiserDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0679-8730

Funding

Wake Forest Claude D. Pepper OAIC - RenewalP30AG021332 · NIA · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Denise Kathryn Houston · 2002 to 2026
$36.4M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG021332
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Random forest (RF) regression is popular machine learning method to develop prediction models for continuous outcomes. Variable selection, also known as feature selection or reduction, involves selecting a subset of predictor variables for modeling. Potential benefits of variable selection are methodologic (i.e. improving prediction accuracy and computational efficiency) and practical (i.e. reducing the burden of data collection and improving efficiency). Several variable selection methods leveraging RFs have been proposed, but there is limited evidence to guide decisions on which methods may be preferable for different types of datasets with continuous outcomes. Using 59 publicly available datasets in a benchmarking study, we evaluated the implementation of 13 RF variable selection methods. Performance of variable selection was measured via out-of-sample R2 of a RF that used the variables selected for each method. Simplicity of variable selection was measured via the percent reduction in the number of variables selected out of the number of variables available. Efficiency was measured via computational time required to complete the variable selection. Based on our benchmarking study, variable selection methods implemented in the Boruta and aorsf R packages selected the best subset of variables for axis-based RF models, whereas methods implemented in the aorsf R package selected the best subset of variables for oblique RF models. A significant contribution of this study is the ability to assess different variable selection methods in the setting of RF regression for continuous outcomes to identify preferable methods using an open science approach.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyMachine LearningAlgorithmsHumansRandom ForestRegression Analysisfeature reductionfeature selectionrandom forestregressionvariable selection

Identifiers

PMID40062620
PMCPMC11891652

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.