ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
A comparison of random forest variable selection methods for regression modeling of continuous outcomes.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variable selection for clinical prediction models in low-dimensional data - a simulation study comparing traditional regression and machine learning methods.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Integrating Machine Learning and Expert Sensory Evaluation to Identify Key Drivers of Tomato Fruit Quality: A Multi-Model and Age-Stratified Analysis.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Psychosocial and Social Security Risks Linked to Vaccine Misinformation in Romania: Implications for Vaccination Acceptance and Public Policy.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A feature selection-based oblique hyperplane for oblique random survival forests.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Combined machine learning identification and experimental validation of NDUFS8 and SUCLG1 as potential biomarkers for mechanical asphyxia.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Prediction of Esterification and Antioxidant Properties of Food-Derived Fatty Acids and Ascorbic Acid Based on Machine Learning: A Review.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- From rings to regions: modeling and mapping climate-driven timber production zones forFrontiers in plant science · 2025Article
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
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
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.