Cargando…
Performance of binary prediction models in high-correlation low-dimensional settings: a comparison of methods
BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models are developed widely across medical disciplines. When predictors in such models are highly collinear, unexpected or spurious predictor-outcome associations may occur, thereby potentially reducing face-validity of the prediction model. Collinearity can be dealt...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8751246/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35016734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-021-00115-5 |
_version_ | 1784631643277885440 |
---|---|
author | Leeuwenberg, Artuur M. van Smeden, Maarten Langendijk, Johannes A. van der Schaaf, Arjen Mauer, Murielle E. Moons, Karel G. M. Reitsma, Johannes B. Schuit, Ewoud |
author_facet | Leeuwenberg, Artuur M. van Smeden, Maarten Langendijk, Johannes A. van der Schaaf, Arjen Mauer, Murielle E. Moons, Karel G. M. Reitsma, Johannes B. Schuit, Ewoud |
author_sort | Leeuwenberg, Artuur M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models are developed widely across medical disciplines. When predictors in such models are highly collinear, unexpected or spurious predictor-outcome associations may occur, thereby potentially reducing face-validity of the prediction model. Collinearity can be dealt with by exclusion of collinear predictors, but when there is no a priori motivation (besides collinearity) to include or exclude specific predictors, such an approach is arbitrary and possibly inappropriate. METHODS: We compare different methods to address collinearity, including shrinkage, dimensionality reduction, and constrained optimization. The effectiveness of these methods is illustrated via simulations. RESULTS: In the conducted simulations, no effect of collinearity was observed on predictive outcomes (AUC, R(2), Intercept, Slope) across methods. However, a negative effect of collinearity on the stability of predictor selection was found, affecting all compared methods, but in particular methods that perform strong predictor selection (e.g., Lasso). Methods for which the included set of predictors remained most stable under increased collinearity were Ridge, PCLR, LAELR, and Dropout. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results, we would recommend refraining from data-driven predictor selection approaches in the presence of high collinearity, because of the increased instability of predictor selection, even in relatively high events-per-variable settings. The selection of certain predictors over others may disproportionally give the impression that included predictors have a stronger association with the outcome than excluded predictors. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41512-021-00115-5. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8751246 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87512462022-01-11 Performance of binary prediction models in high-correlation low-dimensional settings: a comparison of methods Leeuwenberg, Artuur M. van Smeden, Maarten Langendijk, Johannes A. van der Schaaf, Arjen Mauer, Murielle E. Moons, Karel G. M. Reitsma, Johannes B. Schuit, Ewoud Diagn Progn Res Research BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models are developed widely across medical disciplines. When predictors in such models are highly collinear, unexpected or spurious predictor-outcome associations may occur, thereby potentially reducing face-validity of the prediction model. Collinearity can be dealt with by exclusion of collinear predictors, but when there is no a priori motivation (besides collinearity) to include or exclude specific predictors, such an approach is arbitrary and possibly inappropriate. METHODS: We compare different methods to address collinearity, including shrinkage, dimensionality reduction, and constrained optimization. The effectiveness of these methods is illustrated via simulations. RESULTS: In the conducted simulations, no effect of collinearity was observed on predictive outcomes (AUC, R(2), Intercept, Slope) across methods. However, a negative effect of collinearity on the stability of predictor selection was found, affecting all compared methods, but in particular methods that perform strong predictor selection (e.g., Lasso). Methods for which the included set of predictors remained most stable under increased collinearity were Ridge, PCLR, LAELR, and Dropout. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results, we would recommend refraining from data-driven predictor selection approaches in the presence of high collinearity, because of the increased instability of predictor selection, even in relatively high events-per-variable settings. The selection of certain predictors over others may disproportionally give the impression that included predictors have a stronger association with the outcome than excluded predictors. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41512-021-00115-5. BioMed Central 2022-01-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8751246/ /pubmed/35016734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-021-00115-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Leeuwenberg, Artuur M. van Smeden, Maarten Langendijk, Johannes A. van der Schaaf, Arjen Mauer, Murielle E. Moons, Karel G. M. Reitsma, Johannes B. Schuit, Ewoud Performance of binary prediction models in high-correlation low-dimensional settings: a comparison of methods |
title | Performance of binary prediction models in high-correlation low-dimensional settings: a comparison of methods |
title_full | Performance of binary prediction models in high-correlation low-dimensional settings: a comparison of methods |
title_fullStr | Performance of binary prediction models in high-correlation low-dimensional settings: a comparison of methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Performance of binary prediction models in high-correlation low-dimensional settings: a comparison of methods |
title_short | Performance of binary prediction models in high-correlation low-dimensional settings: a comparison of methods |
title_sort | performance of binary prediction models in high-correlation low-dimensional settings: a comparison of methods |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8751246/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35016734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-021-00115-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leeuwenbergartuurm performanceofbinarypredictionmodelsinhighcorrelationlowdimensionalsettingsacomparisonofmethods AT vansmedenmaarten performanceofbinarypredictionmodelsinhighcorrelationlowdimensionalsettingsacomparisonofmethods AT langendijkjohannesa performanceofbinarypredictionmodelsinhighcorrelationlowdimensionalsettingsacomparisonofmethods AT vanderschaafarjen performanceofbinarypredictionmodelsinhighcorrelationlowdimensionalsettingsacomparisonofmethods AT mauermuriellee performanceofbinarypredictionmodelsinhighcorrelationlowdimensionalsettingsacomparisonofmethods AT moonskarelgm performanceofbinarypredictionmodelsinhighcorrelationlowdimensionalsettingsacomparisonofmethods AT reitsmajohannesb performanceofbinarypredictionmodelsinhighcorrelationlowdimensionalsettingsacomparisonofmethods AT schuitewoud performanceofbinarypredictionmodelsinhighcorrelationlowdimensionalsettingsacomparisonofmethods |