One model, several results: the paradox of the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test for the logistic regression model.

G Bertolini, R D'Amico, D Nardi, A Tinazzi, G Apolone
{"title":"One model, several results: the paradox of the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test for the logistic regression model.","authors":"G Bertolini,&nbsp;R D'Amico,&nbsp;D Nardi,&nbsp;A Tinazzi,&nbsp;G Apolone","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Hosmer-Lemeshow test, used extensively to assess the fit of the logistic regression model, is performed by several statistical packages. Recent studies have shown some problems in the use of this test when ties are present. These problems were attributed merely to the test implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analysed the order of the observations as an alternative explanation of the problem of ties. Using a data-set of 1393 intensive care unit (ICU) patients we performed the Hosmer-Lemeshow test with all possible subjects dispositions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We obtained about one million different P values, ranging from 0.01 to 0.95.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>It is already known that when the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test is performed with a number of covariate patterns lower than the number of subjects, its result may be inaccurate. We showed that the extent of this problem could be relevant under particular conditions. We also suggest a strategy for estimating the extent of the problem and subsequent interpretation.</p>","PeriodicalId":80024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of epidemiology and biostatistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of epidemiology and biostatistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Hosmer-Lemeshow test, used extensively to assess the fit of the logistic regression model, is performed by several statistical packages. Recent studies have shown some problems in the use of this test when ties are present. These problems were attributed merely to the test implementation.

Methods: We analysed the order of the observations as an alternative explanation of the problem of ties. Using a data-set of 1393 intensive care unit (ICU) patients we performed the Hosmer-Lemeshow test with all possible subjects dispositions.

Results: We obtained about one million different P values, ranging from 0.01 to 0.95.

Discussion: It is already known that when the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test is performed with a number of covariate patterns lower than the number of subjects, its result may be inaccurate. We showed that the extent of this problem could be relevant under particular conditions. We also suggest a strategy for estimating the extent of the problem and subsequent interpretation.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一个模型,几个结果:逻辑回归模型的Hosmer-Lemeshow拟合优度检验的悖论。
背景:Hosmer-Lemeshow检验,广泛用于评估逻辑回归模型的拟合,是由几个统计软件包执行的。最近的研究表明,当领带存在时,这种测试的使用存在一些问题。这些问题仅仅归因于测试实现。方法:我们分析了观察的顺序,作为关系问题的另一种解释。使用1393名重症监护病房(ICU)患者的数据集,我们对所有可能的受试者性情进行了Hosmer-Lemeshow测试。结果:得到了大约100万个不同的P值,范围在0.01 ~ 0.95之间。讨论:众所周知,当Hosmer-Lemeshow拟合优度检验的协变量模式数量低于受试者数量时,其结果可能是不准确的。我们表明,在特定条件下,这个问题的程度可能是相关的。我们还提出了一种评估问题程度和随后解释的策略。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Statistical Inference Population, Exposure, and Outcome Measures of Disease Frequency Practice Problem Workbook Solutions Case Reports and Case Series
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1