A comparison of model choice strategies for logistic regression

被引:0
|
作者
Karhunen, Markku [1 ]
机构
[1] Finnish Environm Inst Syke, Built Environm Solut Unit, Latokartanonkaari 11, Helsinki 00790, Finland
关键词
Model choice; Logistic regression; Logit regression; Monte Carlo simulations; Sensitivity; Specificity; SELECTION; GENE;
D O I
10.2478/jdis-2024-0001
中图分类号
G25 [图书馆学、图书馆事业]; G35 [情报学、情报工作];
学科分类号
1205 ; 120501 ;
摘要
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to develop and compare model choice strategies in context of logistic regression. Model choice means the choice of the covariates to be included in the model. Design/methodology/approach: The study is based on Monte Carlo simulations. The methods are compared in terms of three measures of accuracy: specificity and two kinds of sensitivity. A loss function combining sensitivity and specificity is introduced and used for a final comparison. Findings: The choice of method depends on how much the users emphasize sensitivity against specificity. It also depends on the sample size. For a typical logistic regression setting with a moderate sample size and a small to moderate effect size, either BIC, BICc or Lasso seems to be optimal. Research limitations: Numerical simulations cannot cover the whole range of data-generating processes occurring with real-world data. Thus, more simulations are needed. Practical implications Researchers can refer to these results if they believe that their data-generating process is somewhat similar to some of the scenarios presented in this paper. Alternatively, they could run their own simulations and calculate the loss function. Originality/value: This is a systematic comparison of model choice algorithms and heuristics in context of logistic regression. The distinction between two types of sensitivity and a comparison based on a loss function are methodological novelties.
引用
收藏
页码:37 / 52
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A comparison of model choice strategies for logistic regression
    Markku Karhunen
    [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2024, 9 (01) : 37 - 52
  • [2] Logistic regression, an illogical choice?
    Carpenter, TE
    [J]. SOCIETY FOR VETERINARY EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, PROCEEDINGS, 1998, : 69 - 76
  • [3] A comparison of logistic regression methods for Ising model estimation
    Brusco, Michael J.
    Steinley, Douglas
    Watts, Ashley L.
    [J]. BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2023, 55 (07) : 3566 - 3584
  • [4] A comparison of logistic regression methods for Ising model estimation
    Michael J. Brusco
    Douglas Steinley
    Ashley L. Watts
    [J]. Behavior Research Methods, 2023, 55 : 3566 - 3584
  • [5] Comparation of logistic regression methods and discrete choice model in the selection of habitats
    Vergara Cardozo, Sandra
    Manly, Bryan Frederick John
    dos Santos Dias, Carlos Tadeu
    [J]. SCIENTIA AGRICOLA, 2010, 67 (03): : 327 - 333
  • [6] A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model
    Hosmer, DW
    Hosmer, T
    leCessie, S
    Lemeshow, S
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1997, 16 (09) : 965 - 980
  • [7] Cluster-Based Logistic Regression Model for Holiday Travel Mode Choice
    Li, Juan
    Weng, Jinxian
    Shao, Chunfu
    Guo, Hongwei
    [J]. GREEN INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND SAFETY, 2016, 138 : 729 - 737
  • [8] Bayesian Logistic Regression Model Choice via Laplace-Metropolis Algorithm
    Eskandari, Farzad
    Meshkani, M. Reza
    [J]. JIRSS-JOURNAL OF THE IRANIAN STATISTICAL SOCIETY, 2006, 5 (1-2): : 9 - 24
  • [9] Comparison to control in logistic regression
    Dasgupta, N
    Spurrier, JD
    Martinez, E
    Moore, BC
    [J]. COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS-SIMULATION AND COMPUTATION, 2000, 29 (04) : 1039 - 1057
  • [10] Comparison of Bayesian model averaging and stepwise methods for model selection in logistic regression
    Wang, DL
    Zhang, WY
    Bakhai, A
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2004, 23 (22) : 3451 - 3467