Paper detail

On resampling methods for model assessment in penalized and unpenalized logistic regression

Penalized logistic regression methods are frequently used to investigate the relationship between a binary outcome and a set of explanatory variables. The model performance can be assessed by measures such as the concordance statistic (c-statistic), the discrimination slope and the Brier score. Often, data resampling techniques, e.g. crossvalidation, are employed to correct for optimism in these model performance criteria. Especially with small samples or a rare binary outcome variable, leave-one-out crossvalidation is a popular choice. Using simulations and a real data example, we compared the effect of different resampling techniques on the estimation of c-statistics, discrimination slopes and Brier scores for three estimators of logistic regression models, including the maximum likelihood and two maximum penalized-likelihood estimators. Our simulation study confirms earlier studies reporting that leave-one-out crossvalidated c-statistics can be strongly biased towards zero. In addition, our study reveals that this bias is more pronounced for estimators shrinking predicted probabilities towards the observed event rate, such as ridge regression. Leave-one-out crossvalidation also provided pessimistic estimates of the discrimination slope but nearly unbiased estimates of the Brier score. We recommend to use leave-pair-out crossvalidation, five-fold crossvalidation with repetition, the enhanced or the .632+ bootstrap to estimate c-statistics and leave-pair-out or five-fold crossvalidation to estimate discrimination slopes.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.