跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要讨论二元结局预测与采集成本优化,未涉及离散选择行为或金融收益预测。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Dimitris Fouskakis
David Draper

二元结局预测中变量选择的随机优化比较及卫生政策应用

研究问题
当预测变量采集成本不同且未来研究预算受限时,如何为二元结局预测选择变量,并在庞大的候选模型空间中有效搜索?
方法与思路
作者建立预算约束下的贝叶斯决策框架,比较模拟退火、遗传算法和禁忌搜索,并设计适配该问题的改进模拟退火。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称不同维度下较优搜索方法有所不同,改进模拟退火优于其通用版本,并以医院医疗质量数据说明成本约束选择。
阅读关注点
应核对预测收益与采集成本如何进入决策目标,以及搜索算法的计算预算、用户参数敏感性和比较公平性。
阅读边界
仅依据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;搜索空间幂次排版不清,需核对原 PDF,算法比较结论限于文中研究设置。

原文摘要

Traditional variable-selection strategies in generalized linear models (GLMs) seek to optimize a measure of predictive accuracy without regard for the cost of data collection. When the purpose of such model building is the creation of predictive scales to be used in future studies with constrained budgets, the standard approach may not be optimal. We propose a Bayesian decision-theoretic framework for variable selection in binary-outcome GLMs where the budget for data collection is constrained and potential predictors may vary considerably in cost. The method is illustrated using data from a large study of quality of hospital care in the U.S. in the 1980s. Especially when the number of available predictors p is large, it is important to use an appropriate technique for optimization (e.g., in an application presented here where p = 83, the space over which we search has 283 ≐ 1025 elements, which is too large to explore using brute force enumeration). Specifically, we investigate simulated annealing (SA), genetic algorithms (GAs), and the tabu search (TS) method used in operations research, and we develop a context-specific version of SA, improved simulated annealing (ISA), that performs better than its generic counterpart. When p was modest in our study, we found that GAs performed relatively poorly for all but the very best user-defined input configurations, generic SA did not perform well, and TS had excellent median performance and was much less sensitive to suboptimal choice of user-defined inputs. When p was large in our study, the best versions of GA and ISA outperformed TS and generic SA. Our results are presented in the context of health policy but can apply to other quality assessment settings with dichotomous outcomes as well.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文