ArticleJournal of chemometrics2024
Implications of confounding from unmodeled interactions between explanatory variables when using latent variable regression models to make inferences.
Article in Journal of chemometrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With linear dependency between the explanatory variables, partial least squares (PLS) regression is commonly used for regression analysis. If the response variable correlates to a high degree with the explanatory variables, a model with excellent predictive ability can usually be obtained. Ranking of variable importance is commonly used to interpret the model and sometimes this interpretation guides further experimentation. For instance, when analyzing natural product extracts for bioactivity, an underlying assumption is that the highest ranked compounds represent the best candidates for isolation and further testing. A problem with this approach is that in most cases the number of compounds is larger than the number of samples (and usually much larger) and that the concentrations of the compounds correlate. Furthermore, compounds may interact as synergists or as antagonists. If the modelling process does not account for this possibility, the interpretation can be thoroughly wrong since unmodelled variables that strongly influence the response will give rise to confounding of a first order PLS model and send the experimenter on a wrong track. We show the consequences of this by a practical example from natural product research. Furthermore, we show that by including the possibility of interactions between explanatory variables, visualization using a selectivity ratio plot may provide model interpretation that can be used to make inferences.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.