Testing the Relative Performance of Data Adaptive Prediction Algorithms: A Generalized Test of Conditional Risk Differences

IF 1.2 4区 数学 International Journal of Biostatistics Pub Date : 2016-05-01 DOI:10.1515/ijb-2015-0014
B. Goldstein, E. Polley, F. Briggs, M. J. van der Laan, A. Hubbard
{"title":"Testing the Relative Performance of Data Adaptive Prediction Algorithms: A Generalized Test of Conditional Risk Differences","authors":"B. Goldstein, E. Polley, F. Briggs, M. J. van der Laan, A. Hubbard","doi":"10.1515/ijb-2015-0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Comparing the relative fit of competing models can be used to address many different scientific questions. In classical statistics one can, if appropriate, use likelihood ratio tests and information based criterion, whereas clinical medicine has tended to rely on comparisons of fit metrics like C-statistics. However, for many data adaptive modelling procedures such approaches are not suitable. In these cases, statisticians have used cross-validation, which can make inference challenging. In this paper we propose a general approach that focuses on the “conditional” risk difference (conditional on the model fits being fixed) for the improvement in prediction risk. Specifically, we derive a Wald-type test statistic and associated confidence intervals for cross-validated test sets utilizing the independent validation within cross-validation in conjunction with a test for multiple comparisons. We show that this test maintains proper Type I Error under the null fit, and can be used as a general test of relative fit for any semi-parametric model alternative. We apply the test to a candidate gene study to test for the association of a set of genes in a genetic pathway.","PeriodicalId":50333,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Biostatistics","volume":"12 1","pages":"117 - 129"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/ijb-2015-0014","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Biostatistics","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijb-2015-0014","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Comparing the relative fit of competing models can be used to address many different scientific questions. In classical statistics one can, if appropriate, use likelihood ratio tests and information based criterion, whereas clinical medicine has tended to rely on comparisons of fit metrics like C-statistics. However, for many data adaptive modelling procedures such approaches are not suitable. In these cases, statisticians have used cross-validation, which can make inference challenging. In this paper we propose a general approach that focuses on the “conditional” risk difference (conditional on the model fits being fixed) for the improvement in prediction risk. Specifically, we derive a Wald-type test statistic and associated confidence intervals for cross-validated test sets utilizing the independent validation within cross-validation in conjunction with a test for multiple comparisons. We show that this test maintains proper Type I Error under the null fit, and can be used as a general test of relative fit for any semi-parametric model alternative. We apply the test to a candidate gene study to test for the association of a set of genes in a genetic pathway.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
测试数据自适应预测算法的相对性能:条件风险差异的广义测试
比较竞争模型的相对拟合可以用来解决许多不同的科学问题。在经典统计学中,如果合适的话,可以使用似然比检验和基于信息的标准,而临床医学往往依赖于c统计等拟合度量的比较。然而,对于许多数据自适应建模程序,这种方法并不适用。在这些情况下,统计学家使用交叉验证,这可能使推理具有挑战性。在本文中,我们提出了一种通用的方法,重点关注“条件”风险差异(条件是模型拟合是固定的),以提高预测风险。具体地说,我们利用交叉验证中的独立验证与多个比较的测试相结合,得出了交叉验证测试集的wald型检验统计量和相关置信区间。我们表明,该检验在零拟合下保持适当的I型误差,并且可以用作任何半参数模型替代的相对拟合的一般检验。我们将测试应用于候选基因研究,以测试一组基因在遗传途径中的关联。
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
International Journal of Biostatistics
International Journal of Biostatistics Mathematics-Statistics and Probability
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Biostatistics (IJB) seeks to publish new biostatistical models and methods, new statistical theory, as well as original applications of statistical methods, for important practical problems arising from the biological, medical, public health, and agricultural sciences with an emphasis on semiparametric methods. Given many alternatives to publish exist within biostatistics, IJB offers a place to publish for research in biostatistics focusing on modern methods, often based on machine-learning and other data-adaptive methodologies, as well as providing a unique reading experience that compels the author to be explicit about the statistical inference problem addressed by the paper. IJB is intended that the journal cover the entire range of biostatistics, from theoretical advances to relevant and sensible translations of a practical problem into a statistical framework. Electronic publication also allows for data and software code to be appended, and opens the door for reproducible research allowing readers to easily replicate analyses described in a paper. Both original research and review articles will be warmly received, as will articles applying sound statistical methods to practical problems.
期刊最新文献
Bayesian covariance regression in functional data analysis with applications to functional brain imaging. DsubCox: a fast subsampling algorithm for Cox model with distributed and massive survival data. Hypothesis testing for detecting outlier evaluators. Optimizing personalized treatments for targeted patient populations across multiple domains. History-restricted marginal structural model and latent class growth analysis of treatment trajectories for a time-dependent outcome.
×
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