Variable selection for clinical prediction models in low-dimensional data - a simulation study comparing traditional regression and machine learning methods.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Johannes A Vey, Georg Heinze, Meinhard Kieser
{"title":"Variable selection for clinical prediction models in low-dimensional data - a simulation study comparing traditional regression and machine learning methods.","authors":"Johannes A Vey, Georg Heinze, Meinhard Kieser","doi":"10.1186/s12874-026-02930-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>A wide range of methods exist for developing a clinical prediction model (CPM) and for performing variable selection. Our purpose was to develop a fair simulation study design and to investigate the properties, strengths, and weaknesses of different methods to predict a continuous outcome in low-dimensional data situations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this simulation study, we conducted a neutral comparison of traditional (linear regression with stepwise selection) and machine learning (regularized regression with elastic net, gradient boosting, random forest) variable selection strategies to derive a CPM. The generated datasets included a total of 15 variables, with 8 of those being predictor variables. Four data- and outcome-generating mechanisms with increasing complexity produced data structures typical for biomedicine covering linear associations and gradually introducing non-linear and non-additive elements into the data structure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All methods generally performed better with increasing sample size and less noise in the data. Gradient boosting with regression models and with trees as base learners, and the elastic net regularized regression included nearly all variables (i.e., both the predictor and non-predictor variables), especially with increasing sample size. The linear regression model with stepwise selection (LMSS) showed the best trade-off between correctly including the predictors and excluding the non-predictor variables in most of the scenarios, even when the functional form of continuous predictors deviated from linearity. In more complex data, variable selection using the Boruta or Hapfelmeier approach for random forest performed similar to LMSS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The sample size must be sufficiently large to enable the methods to reliably identify the predictor variables and to ensure that the developed CPMs are accurate and well-calibrated. LMSS revealed good properties and the random forest with the Boruta or Hapfelmeier approach are suitable alternatives if complex associations between predictors and outcomes are assumed.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13340120/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-026-02930-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: A wide range of methods exist for developing a clinical prediction model (CPM) and for performing variable selection. Our purpose was to develop a fair simulation study design and to investigate the properties, strengths, and weaknesses of different methods to predict a continuous outcome in low-dimensional data situations.

Methods: In this simulation study, we conducted a neutral comparison of traditional (linear regression with stepwise selection) and machine learning (regularized regression with elastic net, gradient boosting, random forest) variable selection strategies to derive a CPM. The generated datasets included a total of 15 variables, with 8 of those being predictor variables. Four data- and outcome-generating mechanisms with increasing complexity produced data structures typical for biomedicine covering linear associations and gradually introducing non-linear and non-additive elements into the data structure.

Results: All methods generally performed better with increasing sample size and less noise in the data. Gradient boosting with regression models and with trees as base learners, and the elastic net regularized regression included nearly all variables (i.e., both the predictor and non-predictor variables), especially with increasing sample size. The linear regression model with stepwise selection (LMSS) showed the best trade-off between correctly including the predictors and excluding the non-predictor variables in most of the scenarios, even when the functional form of continuous predictors deviated from linearity. In more complex data, variable selection using the Boruta or Hapfelmeier approach for random forest performed similar to LMSS.

Conclusion: The sample size must be sufficiently large to enable the methods to reliably identify the predictor variables and to ensure that the developed CPMs are accurate and well-calibrated. LMSS revealed good properties and the random forest with the Boruta or Hapfelmeier approach are suitable alternatives if complex associations between predictors and outcomes are assumed.

低维数据中临床预测模型的变量选择——比较传统回归和机器学习方法的模拟研究。
目的:建立临床预测模型(CPM)和进行变量选择有多种方法。我们的目的是开发一个公平的模拟研究设计,并研究在低维数据情况下预测连续结果的不同方法的特性、优点和缺点。方法:在本模拟研究中,我们对传统(带逐步选择的线性回归)和机器学习(带弹性网络的正则化回归、梯度增强、随机森林)变量选择策略进行了中性比较,以得出CPM。生成的数据集共包括15个变量,其中8个是预测变量。四种日益复杂的数据和结果生成机制产生了典型的生物医学数据结构,涵盖线性关联,并逐渐将非线性和非可加性元素引入数据结构。结果:随着样本量的增加和数据噪声的减少,各种方法的效果普遍较好。梯度增强与回归模型和树作为基础学习器,弹性网正则化回归包括几乎所有的变量(即,预测和非预测变量),特别是随着样本量的增加。在大多数情况下,即使连续预测变量的函数形式偏离线性,采用逐步选择(LMSS)的线性回归模型也能在正确包括预测变量和排除非预测变量之间取得最佳平衡。在更复杂的数据中,随机森林变量选择使用Boruta或Hapfelmeier方法的效果与LMSS相似。结论:样本量必须足够大,以使方法能够可靠地识别预测变量,并确保所开发的cpm准确且校准良好。LMSS显示出良好的特性,如果假设预测因子和结果之间存在复杂的关联,随机森林与Boruta或Hapfelmeier方法是合适的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书