EUVIMEDEuropean Health Evidence
Uhr Sources10/10 Journal Tree
Easy Demo

European Health Evidence

The European alternative to PubMed

EUVIMED is the European alternative to PubMed: a central, multilingual research platform for medicine, nursing, life sciences and healthcare. It brings together international and European literature sources, study registries, open-access full texts, citations and retraction notices in one search. Unlike pure bibliographic databases, EUVIMED supports the entire research process – from discovery and appraisal with LIVIA and CLARA to traceable evidence synthesis. European in focus, transparent, interoperable and designed for science and healthcare.

EuropeanMultilingualInteroperableTraceable

EUVIMED BETA

EUVIMED is currently in beta

EUVIMED is under continuous development. Features, data coverage and presentation may change or be temporarily incomplete.

Results are beta

Search results, classifications, summaries and AI-assisted assessments may be incomplete, delayed or incorrect.

Check original sources

Do not use EUVIMED results without verification for diagnosis, treatment or other clinical decisions. Always consult the original source and applicable guidelines.

Errors and feedback help us improve EUVIMED: info@euvimed.com

Lokaler Crossref-Datenbestand · journal-article

Comparing the use of supervised machine learning variable selection methods in the context of two-group classification in the psychological and health sciences

Catherine M. Bain, Dingjing Shi, Yaser M. Banad, Cassandra L. Boness, Jordan E. Loeffelman

Frontiers in Psychology · 2026

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

Introduction Variable selection (VS) is crucial for building accurate and generalizable classification models. Reducing the necessary number of variables improves model efficiency, interpretability, and generalizability while reducing data collection burden. Despite the availability of various VS methods, their comparative performance within machine learning frameworks for classification remains unclear. Methods This study conducted a large-scale Monte Carlo simulation to compare VS methods from distinct families: regularization techniques (LASSO, Elastic Net), tree-based methods (random forest-based Boruta wrapper), penalized support vector machines, and metaheuristics (genetic algorithm). An empirical example from an alcohol use disorder dataset illustrated the comparative findings. Supplementary simulations evaluated four additional filter methods, re-estimated performance under stratified 10-fold cross-validation, and quantified overfitting via train-test performance gaps. Results In the main simulation, the genetic algorithm demonstrated the strongest overall classification accuracy, while LASSO offered the most parsimonious solution with minimal performance loss. All three top-performing methods (GA, LASSO, Elastic Net) substantially reduced the number of variables from the saturated model. Supplementary analyses aligned with main simulation findings. Discussion These findings highlight the practical value of machine learning VS methods in psychological research by demonstrating how to balance accuracy, interpretability, and scalability. The results provide guidance for researchers selecting among competing VS approaches based on their priorities regarding model performance versus parsimony.

Bibliografischer Nachweis

Publikationsdaten

Autor:innen
Catherine M. Bain, Dingjing Shi, Yaser M. Banad, Cassandra L. Boness, Jordan E. Loeffelman
Quelle
Frontiers in Psychology
Publikation
2026-01-01
Band / Ausgabe
Nicht angegeben
Seiten
Nicht angegeben
ISSN / ISBN
1664-1078
Zitationen
0 laut Crossref
Referenzen
0 hinterlegt

Zitieren

Zitierfähiger Nachweis

Catherine M. Bain, Dingjing Shi, Yaser M. Banad, Cassandra L. Boness, Jordan E. Loeffelman (2026). Comparing the use of supervised machine learning variable selection methods in the context of two-group classification in the psychological and health sciences. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1819366
RIS BibTeX CSL-JSON

Kontext

Themen, Förderung und Nutzung

Lizenzhinweise: Lizenz 1