by Theresa Ullmann, Georg Heinze, Lorena Hafermann, Christine Schilhart-Wallisch, Daniela Dunkler, for TG2 of the STRATOS initiative
Researchers often perform data-driven variable selection when modeling the associations between an outcome and multiple independent variables in regression analysis. Variable selection may improve the interpretability, parsimony and/or predictive accuracy of a model. Yet variable selection can also have negative consequences, such as false exclusion of important variables or inclusion of noise variables, biased estimation of regression coefficients, underestimated standard errors and invalid confidence intervals, as well as model instability. While the potential advantages and disadvantages of variable selection have been discussed in the literature for decades, few large-scale simulation studies have neutrally compared data-driven variable selection methods with respect to their consequences for the resulting models. We present the protocol for a simulation study that will evaluate different variable selection methods: forward selection, stepwise forward selection, backward elimination, augmented backward elimination, univariable selection, univariable selection followed by backward elimination, and penalized likelihood approaches (Lasso, relaxed Lasso, adaptive Lasso). These methods will be compared with respect to false inclusion and/or exclusion of variables, consequences on bias and variance of the estimated regression coefficients, the validity of the confidence intervals for the coefficients, the accuracy of the estimated variable importance ranking, and the predictive performance of the selected models. We consider both linear and logistic regression in a low-dimensional setting (20 independent variables with 10 true predictors and 10 noise variables). The simulation will be based on real-world data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Publishing this study protocol ahead of performing the simulation increases transparency and allows integrating the perspective of other experts into the study design.