close this message
arXiv smileybones

arXiv Is Hiring a DevOps Engineer

Work on one of the world's most important websites and make an impact on open science.

View Jobs
Skip to main content
Cornell University

arXiv Is Hiring a DevOps Engineer

View Jobs
We gratefully acknowledge support from the Simons Foundation, member institutions, and all contributors. Donate
arxiv logo > stat > arXiv:1907.11493

Help | Advanced Search

arXiv logo
Cornell University Logo

quick links

  • Login
  • Help Pages
  • About

Statistics > Methodology

arXiv:1907.11493 (stat)
[Submitted on 26 Jul 2019]

Title:On the variability of regression shrinkage methods for clinical prediction models: simulation study on predictive performance

Authors:Ben Van Calster, Maarten van Smeden, Ewout W. Steyerberg
View a PDF of the paper titled On the variability of regression shrinkage methods for clinical prediction models: simulation study on predictive performance, by Ben Van Calster and 2 other authors
View PDF
Abstract:When developing risk prediction models, shrinkage methods are recommended, especially when the sample size is limited. Several earlier studies have shown that the shrinkage of model coefficients can reduce overfitting of the prediction model and subsequently result in better predictive performance on average. In this simulation study, we aimed to investigate the variability of regression shrinkage on predictive performance for a binary outcome, with focus on the calibration slope. The slope indicates whether risk predictions are too extreme (slope < 1) or not extreme enough (slope > 1). We investigated the following shrinkage methods in comparison to standard maximum likelihood estimation: uniform shrinkage (likelihood-based and bootstrap-based), ridge regression, penalized maximum likelihood, LASSO regression, adaptive LASSO, non-negative garrote, and Firth's correction. There were three main findings. First, shrinkage improved calibration slopes on average. Second, the between-sample variability of calibration slopes was often increased relative to maximum likelihood. Among the shrinkage methods, the bootstrap-based uniform shrinkage worked well overall. In contrast to other shrinkage approaches, Firth's correction had only a small shrinkage effect but did so with low variability. Third, the correlation between the estimated shrinkage and the optimal shrinkage to remove overfitting was typically negative. Hence, although shrinkage improved predictions on average, it often worked poorly in individual datasets, in particular when shrinkage was most needed. The observed variability of shrinkage methods implies that these methods do not solve problems associated with small sample size or low number of events per variable.
Comments: 138 pages (incl 114 supplementary pages). Main document: 5 figures and 2 tables
Subjects: Methodology (stat.ME)
MSC classes: 62J07
Cite as: arXiv:1907.11493 [stat.ME]
  (or arXiv:1907.11493v1 [stat.ME] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.11493
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Maarten van Smeden [view email]
[v1] Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:29:19 UTC (1,895 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled On the variability of regression shrinkage methods for clinical prediction models: simulation study on predictive performance, by Ben Van Calster and 2 other authors
  • View PDF
  • Other Formats
license icon view license
Current browse context:
stat.ME
< prev   |   next >
new | recent | 2019-07
Change to browse by:
stat

References & Citations

  • NASA ADS
  • Google Scholar
  • Semantic Scholar
a export BibTeX citation Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

×
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy logo Reddit logo

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
  • Author
  • Venue
  • Institution
  • Topic

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
  • About
  • Help
  • contact arXivClick here to contact arXiv Contact
  • subscribe to arXiv mailingsClick here to subscribe Subscribe
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Web Accessibility Assistance
  • arXiv Operational Status
    Get status notifications via email or slack