Cited by 1,011Statistical Methods and InferenceStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Variable selection strategies and its importance in clinical prediction modelling.

Open access
Chowdhury, Mohammad Ziaul Islam, Turin, Tanvir C·2020·Family Medicine and Community Health

Abstract

Clinical prediction models are used frequently in clinical practice to identify patients who are at risk of developing an adverse outcome so that preventive measures can be initiated. A prediction model can be developed in a number of ways; however, an appropriate variable selection strategy needs to be followed in all cases. Our purpose is to introduce readers to the concept of variable selection in prediction modelling, including the importance of variable selection and variable reduction strategies. We will discuss the various variable selection techniques that can be applied during prediction model building (backward elimination, forward selection, stepwise selection and all possible subset selection), and the stopping rule/selection criteria in variable selection (p values, Akaike information criterion, Bayesian information criterion and Mallows’ C p statistic). This paper focuses on the importance of including appropriate variables, following the proper steps, and adopting the proper methods when selecting variables for prediction models.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/fmch-2019-000262

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Paired reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs.

    “Paired reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs.33”

    From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Among Informal Caregivers of People With Chronic Health Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [33]

    The paper’s Variable reduction strategies section discusses systematic reviews as a way to identify candidate variables for prediction models, not how reviewers assessed study quality. Searches for paired reviewers, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and RCTs found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed assessment procedure. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [4]Guyon I, Elisseeff A An introduction to variable and feature selection. Journal of machine learning research 2003; 3: 1157– 82.
  2. [28]Gilmour SG The interpretation of Mallows's Cp-statistic. The Statistician 1996; 1: 49– 56.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chowdhury, M. Z. I., & Turin, T. C.
Affiliations
University of Calgary (CA)
Corresponding author
Turin, Tanvir C
Venue
Family Medicine and Community Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-02
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
e000262
ISSN
  • 2009-8774 (ISSN-L)
  • 2305-6983
OpenAlex
W3008867523
Cited by
1,011
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 128 · 2025: 245 · 2024: 228 · 2023: 193 · 2022: 127 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
71.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Family Medicine and Community Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
feature selection, clinical prediction model, backward elimination, forward selection, stepwise selection, stopping rules, Akaike information criterion, Bayesian information criterion, Mallows' Cp, variable reduction, risk prediction
MeSH terms
Adverse Outcome Pathways, Bayes Theorem, Humans, Models, Statistical, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review