2016
DOI: 10.1111/tri.12895
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Five myths about variable selection

Abstract: SUMMARYMultivariable regression models are often used in transplantation research to identify or to confirm baseline variables which have an independent association, causally or only evidenced by statistical correlation, with transplantation outcome. Although sound theory is lacking, variable selection is a popular statistical method which seemingly reduces the complexity of such models. However, in fact, variable selection often complicates analysis as it invalidates common tools of statistical inference such… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
278
0
5

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 394 publications
(284 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
278
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…However, in this single‐centre experience our graft allocation policy and even donor selection remained basically the same throughout the entire observation period, except for a more aggressive acceptance of multiple donor comorbidities in DP group. Moreover, the rigorous variable selection procedure applied in this study may have missed to identify some important risk factors and may have overestimated the real effect sizes and underestimated the P ‐values of the selected risk factors . Several other variables may have a relevant weight in promoting or reducing the risk of ITBL, such as surgical technique, mode of graft revascularisation, and intra‐operative use of vasopressors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, in this single‐centre experience our graft allocation policy and even donor selection remained basically the same throughout the entire observation period, except for a more aggressive acceptance of multiple donor comorbidities in DP group. Moreover, the rigorous variable selection procedure applied in this study may have missed to identify some important risk factors and may have overestimated the real effect sizes and underestimated the P ‐values of the selected risk factors . Several other variables may have a relevant weight in promoting or reducing the risk of ITBL, such as surgical technique, mode of graft revascularisation, and intra‐operative use of vasopressors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Continuous variables were dichotomized according to known cut‐off values defining, for example, elderly (age > 75) or obese (BMI ≥ 30) patients, or clear resection margins (CRM > 2 mm) . In the initial regression model, all variables with a P value < 0.2 in the univariate analysis were included . Then, a simplified model was generated with predictor selection guided by statistical significance and clinical relevance.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the FDArecommended CKD273 signature for diagnosis of early kidney disease is based on univariate protein filtering followed by a machine-learning algorithm applied to the filtered features (Good et al, 2010;Dakna et al, 2010;Nkuipou-Kenfack, Zürbig and Mischak, 2017). Among non-statisticians, it is still even believed that univariate significance is a prerequisite for including a variable in a multivariable model (Heinze and Dunkler, 2017). In contrast, it is generally accepted among statisticians that the difference between unadjusted and adjusted effects of a variable can go in either direction, therefore that univariable selection may be misleading (Sun, Shook and Kay, 1996).…”
Section: Traditional Variable Selection Strategiesmentioning
confidence: 99%