Random forests for the analysis of matched case–control studies
Background
Conditional 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.
Results
A 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.
Conclusions
The 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.
Top-30
Journals
|
1
|
|
|
Frontiers in Medicine
1 publication, 25%
|
|
|
BMJ Open
1 publication, 25%
|
|
|
Headache
1 publication, 25%
|
|
|
1
|
Publishers
|
1
|
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
1 publication, 25%
|
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
1 publication, 25%
|
|
|
BMJ
1 publication, 25%
|
|
|
Wiley
1 publication, 25%
|
|
|
1
|
- We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
- Statistics recalculated weekly.