对某些预测模型性能度量的交叉验证、惩罚和差异偏差进行了模拟研究。

Angelika Geroldinger, Lara Lusa, Mariana Nold, Georg Heinze
{"title":"对某些预测模型性能度量的交叉验证、惩罚和差异偏差进行了模拟研究。","authors":"Angelika Geroldinger,&nbsp;Lara Lusa,&nbsp;Mariana Nold,&nbsp;Georg Heinze","doi":"10.1186/s41512-023-00146-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The performance of models for binary outcomes can be described by measures such as the concordance statistic (c-statistic, area under the curve), the discrimination slope, or the Brier score. At internal validation, data resampling techniques, e.g., cross-validation, are frequently employed to correct for optimism in these model performance criteria. Especially with small samples or rare events, leave-one-out cross-validation is a popular choice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using simulations and a real data example, we compared the effect of different resampling techniques on the estimation of c-statistics, discrimination slopes, and Brier scores for three estimators of logistic regression models, including the maximum likelihood and two maximum penalized likelihood estimators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our simulation study confirms earlier studies reporting that leave-one-out cross-validated c-statistics can be strongly biased towards zero. In addition, our study reveals that this bias is even more pronounced for model estimators shrinking estimated probabilities towards the observed event fraction, such as ridge regression. Leave-one-out cross-validation also provided pessimistic estimates of the discrimination slope but nearly unbiased estimates of the Brier score.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We recommend to use leave-pair-out cross-validation, fivefold cross-validation with repetitions, the enhanced or the .632+ bootstrap to estimate c-statistics, and leave-pair-out or fivefold cross-validation to estimate discrimination slopes.</p>","PeriodicalId":72800,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","volume":"7 1","pages":"9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10152625/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Leave-one-out cross-validation, penalization, and differential bias of some prediction model performance measures-a simulation study.\",\"authors\":\"Angelika Geroldinger,&nbsp;Lara Lusa,&nbsp;Mariana Nold,&nbsp;Georg Heinze\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41512-023-00146-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The performance of models for binary outcomes can be described by measures such as the concordance statistic (c-statistic, area under the curve), the discrimination slope, or the Brier score. At internal validation, data resampling techniques, e.g., cross-validation, are frequently employed to correct for optimism in these model performance criteria. Especially with small samples or rare events, leave-one-out cross-validation is a popular choice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using simulations and a real data example, we compared the effect of different resampling techniques on the estimation of c-statistics, discrimination slopes, and Brier scores for three estimators of logistic regression models, including the maximum likelihood and two maximum penalized likelihood estimators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our simulation study confirms earlier studies reporting that leave-one-out cross-validated c-statistics can be strongly biased towards zero. In addition, our study reveals that this bias is even more pronounced for model estimators shrinking estimated probabilities towards the observed event fraction, such as ridge regression. Leave-one-out cross-validation also provided pessimistic estimates of the discrimination slope but nearly unbiased estimates of the Brier score.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We recommend to use leave-pair-out cross-validation, fivefold cross-validation with repetitions, the enhanced or the .632+ bootstrap to estimate c-statistics, and leave-pair-out or fivefold cross-validation to estimate discrimination slopes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72800,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostic and prognostic research\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10152625/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostic and prognostic research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-023-00146-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-023-00146-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:二元结果模型的性能可以通过诸如一致性统计量(c-统计量,曲线下面积),判别斜率或Brier评分等度量来描述。在内部验证中,数据重新采样技术,例如交叉验证,经常被用来纠正这些模型性能标准中的乐观主义。特别是对于小样本或罕见事件,留一交叉验证是一种流行的选择。方法:通过模拟和实际数据示例,我们比较了不同的重采样技术对三种逻辑回归模型估计量的c统计量、判别斜率和Brier分数的影响,包括最大似然估计和两个最大惩罚似然估计。结果:我们的模拟研究证实了早期的研究报告,即留一交叉验证的c统计数据可能强烈偏向于零。此外,我们的研究表明,这种偏差对于模型估计器将估计概率缩小到观测到的事件分数(如脊回归)更为明显。留一交叉验证也提供了对判别斜率的悲观估计,但对Brier评分的估计几乎无偏。结论:我们建议使用左对外交叉验证、五倍重复交叉验证、增强或。632+ bootstrap来估计c统计量,并使用左对外或五倍交叉验证来估计判别斜率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Leave-one-out cross-validation, penalization, and differential bias of some prediction model performance measures-a simulation study.

Leave-one-out cross-validation, penalization, and differential bias of some prediction model performance measures-a simulation study.

Leave-one-out cross-validation, penalization, and differential bias of some prediction model performance measures-a simulation study.

Leave-one-out cross-validation, penalization, and differential bias of some prediction model performance measures-a simulation study.

Background: The performance of models for binary outcomes can be described by measures such as the concordance statistic (c-statistic, area under the curve), the discrimination slope, or the Brier score. At internal validation, data resampling techniques, e.g., cross-validation, are frequently employed to correct for optimism in these model performance criteria. Especially with small samples or rare events, leave-one-out cross-validation is a popular choice.

Methods: Using simulations and a real data example, we compared the effect of different resampling techniques on the estimation of c-statistics, discrimination slopes, and Brier scores for three estimators of logistic regression models, including the maximum likelihood and two maximum penalized likelihood estimators.

Results: Our simulation study confirms earlier studies reporting that leave-one-out cross-validated c-statistics can be strongly biased towards zero. In addition, our study reveals that this bias is even more pronounced for model estimators shrinking estimated probabilities towards the observed event fraction, such as ridge regression. Leave-one-out cross-validation also provided pessimistic estimates of the discrimination slope but nearly unbiased estimates of the Brier score.

Conclusions: We recommend to use leave-pair-out cross-validation, fivefold cross-validation with repetitions, the enhanced or the .632+ bootstrap to estimate c-statistics, and leave-pair-out or fivefold cross-validation to estimate discrimination slopes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信