Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39090608›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2024

Random forests for the analysis of matched case-control studies.

Gunther Schauberger, Stefanie J Klug, Moritz Berger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gunther SchaubergerChair of Epidemiology, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. gunther.schauberger@tum.de.
Stefanie J KlugChair of Epidemiology, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Moritz BergerInstitute of Medical Biometry, Informatics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Gesundheit NKP-332-049Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft BE 7543/1-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConditional logistic regression trees have been proposed as a flexible alternative to the standard method of conditional logistic regression for the analysis of matched case-control studies. While they allow to avoid the strict assumption of linearity and automatically incorporate interactions, conditional logistic regression trees may suffer from a relatively high variability. Further machine learning methods for the analysis of matched case-control studies are missing because conventional machine learning methods cannot handle the matched structure of the data.

resultsA random forest method for the analysis of matched case-control studies based on conditional logistic regression trees is proposed, which overcomes the issue of high variability. It provides an accurate estimation of exposure effects while being more flexible in the functional form of covariate effects. The efficacy of the method is illustrated in a simulation study and within an application to real-world data from a matched case-control study on the effect of regular participation in cervical cancer screening on the development of cervical cancer.

conclusionsThe proposed random forest method is a promising add-on to the toolbox for the analysis of matched case-control studies and addresses the need for machine-learning methods in this field. It provides a more flexible approach compared to the standard method of conditional logistic regression, but also compared to conditional logistic regression trees. It allows for non-linearity and the automatic inclusion of interaction effects and is suitable both for exploratory and explanatory analyses.

Indexed as

Machine LearningRandom ForestCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCLogitForestConditional logistic regressionConditional logistic regression forestsMachine learningMatched case–control studiesRandom forest

Identifiers

PMID39090608
PMCPMC11292918

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.