ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Discretizing multiple continuous predictors with U-shaped relationships with lnOR: introducing the recursive gradient scanning method in clinical and epidemiological research.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssuming a linear relationship between continuous predictors and outcomes in clinical prediction models is often inappropriate, as true linear relationships are rare, potentially resulting in biased estimates and inaccurate conclusions. Our research group addressed a single U-shaped independent variable before. Multiple U-shaped predictors can improve predictive accuracy by capturing nuanced relationships, but they also introduce challenges like increased complexity and potential overfitting. This study aims to extend the applicability of our previous research results to more common scenarios, thereby facilitating more comprehensive and practical investigations.
methodsIn this study, we proposed a novel approach called the Recursive Gradient Scanning Method (RGS) for discretizing multiple continuous variables that exhibit U-shaped relationships with the natural logarithm of the odds ratio (lnOR). The RGS method involves a two-step approach: first, it conducts fine screening from the 2.5th to 97.5th percentiles of the lnOR. Then, it utilizes an iterative process that compares AIC metrics to identify optimal categorical variables. We conducted a Monte Carlo simulation study to investigate the performance of the RGS method. Different correlation levels, sample sizes, missing rates, and symmetry levels of U-shaped relationships were considered in the simulation process. To compare the RGS method with other common approaches (such as median, Q
resultsBoth simulation and empirical studies have consistently demonstrated the effectiveness of the RGS method. In simulation studies, the RGS method showed superior performance compared to other common discretization methods in discrimination ability and overall performance for logistic regression models across various U-shaped scenarios (with varying correlation levels, sample sizes, missing rates, and symmetry levels of U-shaped relationships). Similarly, empirical study showed that the optimal cut-points identified by RGS have superior clinical predictive power, as measured by metrics such as AUC, compared to other traditional methods.
conclusionsThe simulation and empirical study demonstrated that the RGS method outperformed other common discretization methods in terms of goodness of fit and predictive ability. However, in the future, we will focus on addressing challenges related to separation or missing binary responses, and we will require more data to validate our method.
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.