We encounter variables with little variation often in educational data mining (EDM) due to the demographics of higher education and the questions we ask. Yet, little work has examined how to analyze such data. Therefore, we conducted a simulation study using logistic regression, penalized regression, and random forest. We systematically varied the fraction of positive outcomes, feature imbalances, and odds ratios. We find the algorithms treat features with the same odds ratios differently based on the features' imbalance and the outcome imbalance. While none of the algorithms fully solved how to handle imbalanced data, penalized approaches such as Firth and Log-F reduced the difference between the built-in odds ratio and value determined by the algorithm. Our results suggest that EDM studies might contain false negatives when determining which variables are related to an outcome. We then apply our findings to a graduate admissions dataset. We end by proposing recommendations that researchers should consider penalized regression for datasets on the order of hundreds of cases and should include more context about their data in publications such as the outcome and feature imbalances.
How to Cite
random forest, penalized regression, feature imbalance, outcome imbalance
ALTMANN, A., TOLOSI, L., SANDER, O., AND LENGAUER, T. 2010. Permutation importance: a corrected feature importance measure. Bioinformatics 26, 10 (May), 1340–1347.
ARAUJO, M. B., PEARSON, R. G., THUILLER, W., AND ERHARD, M. 2005. Validation of species–climate impact models under climate change. Global Change Biology 11, 9 (Sept.), 1504–1513.
ARREOLA, E. V. AND WILSON, J. R. 2020. Bayesian multiple membership multiple classiﬁcation logistic regression model on student performance with random effects in university instructors and majors. PLOS ONE 15, 1 (Jan.), e0227343.
AULCK, L. S., NAMBI, D., AND WEST, J. 2020. Increasing enrollment by optimizing scholarship allocations using machine learning and genetic algorithms. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, A. N. Rafferty, J. Whitehill, C. Romero, and V. Cavalli-Sforza, Eds. International Educational Data Mining Society, 29–38.
AUSTIN, P. C. AND STEYERBERG, E. W. 2017. Events per variable (epv) and the relative performance of different strategies for estimating the out-of-sample validity of logistic regression models. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 26, 2 (Apr.), 796–808.
AUTENRIETH, M., LEVINE, R. A., FAN, J., AND GUARCELLO, M. A. 2021. Stacked ensemble learning for propensity score methods in observational studies. Journal of Educational Data Mining 13, 1(June), 24–189.
BOSCH, N., CRUES, R. W., SHAIK, N., AND PAQUETTE, L. 2020. “Hello, [REDACTED]”: Protecting student privacy in analyses of online discussion forums. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, A. N. Rafferty, J. Whitehill, C. Romero, and V. Cavalli-Sforza, Eds. International Educational Data Mining Society, 39–49.
BOULESTEIX, A.-L., BENDER, A., LORENZO BERMEJO, J., AND STROBL, C. 2012. Random forest Gini importance favours SNPs with large minor allele frequency: Impact, sources and recommendations. Brieﬁngs in Bioinformatics 13, 3 (May), 292–304.
BOULESTEIX, A.-L., LAUER, S., AND EUGSTER, M. J. A. 2013. A plea for neutral comparison studies in computational sciences. PLOS ONE 8, 4 (Apr.), e61562.
BREIMAN, L. 2001a. Random forests. Machine Learning 45, 1 (Oct.), 5–32.
BREIMAN, L. 2001b. Statistical modeling: The two cultures. Statistical Science 16, 3 (Aug.), 199 – 231.
BREIMAN, L., FRIEDMAN, J., STONE, C. J., AND OLSHEN, R. A. 1984. Classiﬁcation and regression trees. CRC Press.
BULATHWELA, S., PEREZ-ORTIZ, M., LIPANI, A., YILMAZ, E., AND SHAWE-TAYLOR, J. 2020. Predicting engagement in video lectures. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, A. N. Rafferty, J. Whitehill, C. Romero, and V. Cavalli-Sforza, Eds. International Educational Data Mining Society, 50–60.
CHAWLA, N. V. 2009. Data mining for imbalanced datasets: An overview. In Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook, O. Maimon and L. Rokach, Eds. Springer, Boston, MA, 875–886.
CHEN, C., LIAW, A., AND BREIMAN, L. 2004. Using random forest to learn imbalanced data. Tech. Rep. 66, University of California, Berkley. July.
CHEN, F. AND CUI, Y. 2020. LogCF: Deep collaborative ﬁltering with process data for enhanced learning outcome modeling. Journal of Educational Data Mining 12, 4 (Dec.), 66–99.
CHEN, X., LIU, C.-T., ZHANG, M., AND ZHANG, H. 2007. A forest-based approach to identifying gene and gene–gene interactions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 49, 19199–19203.
CHIU, M.-S. 2020. Gender differences in predicting STEM choice by affective states and behaviors in online mathematical problem solving: Positive-affect-to-success hypothesis. Journal of Educational Data Mining 12, 2 (Aug.), 48–77.
COPAS, J. B. 1983. Regression, prediction and shrinkage. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 45, 3, 311–354.
COURONNE, R., PROBST, P., AND BOULESTEIX, A.-L. 2018. Random forest versus logistic regression: a large-scale benchmark experiment. BMC Bioinformatics 19, 1 (July), 270.
COURVOISIER, D. S., COMBESCURE, C., AGORITSAS, T., GAYET-AGERON, A., AND PERNEGER,T. V. 2011. Performance of logistic regression modeling: Beyond the number of events per variable, the role of data structure. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64, 9 (Sept.), 993–1000.
CULE, E., VINEIS, P., AND DE IORIO, M. 2011. Signiﬁcance testing in ridge regression for genetic data. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 1 (Sept.), 372.
DING, L. 2019. Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research 15, 2 (July), 020101.
DOERKEN, S., AVALOS, M., LAGARDE, E., AND SCHUMACHER, M. 2019. Penalized logistic regression with low prevalence exposures beyond high dimensional settings. PLOS ONE 14, 5 (May),e0217057.
DU PREL, J.-B., HOMMEL, G., ROHRIG, B., AND BLETTNER, M. 2009. Conﬁdence interval or p-value? Deutsches Arzteblatt International 106, 19 (May), 335–339.
DIAZ-URIARTE, R. AND ALVAREZ DE ANDRES, S. 2006. Gene selection and classiﬁcation of microarray data using random forest. BMC Bioinformatics 7, 1 (Jan.), 3.
EFRON, B. 1982. The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA.
ENSOY, C., RAKHMAWATI, T. W., FAES, C., AND AERTS, M. 2015. Separation issues and possible solutions: Part I – Systematic literature review on logistic models - Part II – Comparison of different methods for separation in logistic regression. EFSA Supporting Publications 12, 9, 869E.
FIRTH, D. 1993. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 80, 1, 27–38.
FRIEDMAN, J. H., HASTIE, T., AND TIBSHIRANI, R. 2010. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software 33, 1 (Feb.), 1–22.
GELMAN, A. AND HILL, J. 2006. Data Analysis using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge University Press.
GELMAN, A., JAKULIN, A., PITTAU, M. G., AND SU, Y.-S. 2008. A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. Annals of Applied Statistics 2, 4 (Dec.), 1360–1383.
GELMAN, A. AND SU, Y.-S. 2020. arm: Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/HierarchicalModels. https://cran.r-project.org/package=arm.
GREENBERG, E. AND PARKS, R. P. 1997. A predictive approach to model selection and multicollinearity. Journal of Applied Econometrics 12, 1, 67–75.
GREENLAND, S. AND MANSOURNIA, M. A. 2015. Penalization, bias reduction, and default priors in logistic and related categorical and survival regressions. Statistics in Medicine 34, 23, 3133–3143.
GREENLAND, S., MANSOURNIA, M. A., AND ALTMAN, D. G. 2016. Sparse data bias: A problem hiding in plain sight. British Medical Journal 352, i1981.
HAPFELMEIER, A. AND ULM, K. 2013. A new variable selection approach using random forests. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 60, 50–69.
HASTIE, T., TIBSHIRANI, R., AND FRIEDMAN, J. 2009. The Elements of Statistical Learning: DataMining, Inference, and Prediction, 2nd ed. Springer Science & Business Media, New York.
HEINZE, G. AND SCHEMPER, M. 2002. A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine 21, 16, 2409–2419.
HEYDE, C. C. 2014. Central limit theorem. In Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. John Wiley& Sons, Ltd.
HOFNER, B., BOCCUTO, L., AND G¨OKER, M. 2015. Controlling false discoveries in high-dimensional situations: Boosting with stability selection. BMC Bioinformatics 16, 1 (May), 144.
HOLM, S. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 6, 2, 65–70.
HOOKER, G., MENTCH, L., AND ZHOU, S. 2021. Unrestricted permutation forces extrapolation: Variable importance requires at least one more model, or there is no free variable importance. Statistics and Computing 31, 82.
HOTHORN, T., HORNIK, K., AND ZEILEIS, A. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15, 3 (Sept.), 651–674.
HUNT, T. 2020. ModelMetrics: Rapid Calculation of Model Metrics. https://cran.r-project.org/package=ModelMetrics.
HUR, P., BOSCH, N., PAQUETTE, L., AND MERCIER, E. 2020. Harbingers of collaboration? The role of early-class behaviors in predicting collaborative problem solving. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, A. N. Rafferty, J. Whitehill, C. Romero, and V. Cavalli-Sforza, Eds. International Educational Data Mining Society, 104 – 114.
JANITZA, S., CELIK, E., AND BOULESTEIX, A.-L. 2016. A computationally fast variable importance test for random forests for high-dimensional data. Advances in Data Analysis and Classiﬁcation 12, 4(Nov.), 885–915.
JANITZA, S., STROBL, C., AND BOULESTEIX, A.-L. 2013. An AUC-based permutation variable importance measure for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics 14, 119.
JEFFREYS, H. 1946. An invariant form for the prior probability in estimation problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 186, 1007 (Sept.),453–461.
KANIM, S. AND CID, X. C. 2020. Demographics of physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research 16, 2 (July), 020106.
KARP, I. 2014. Re: “Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes”. American Journal of Epidemiology 179, 8 (Apr.), 1034–1035.
KIM, H., KO, T., PARK, N.-W., AND LEE, W. 2014. Comparison of bias correction methods for the rare event logistic regression. Korean Journal of Applied Statistics 27, 2 (Apr.), 277–290.
KING, G. AND ZENG, L. 2001. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 9, 2, 137–163.
KIRASICH, K. 2018. Random forest vs logistic regression: Binary classiﬁcation for heterogeneous datasets. SMU Data Science Review 1, 3, 9.
KNAUB, A. V., AIKEN, J. M., AND DING, L. 2019. Two-phase study examining perspectives and use of quantitative methods in physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research 15, 2 (July), 020102.
KOSMIDIS, I. 2020. brglm: Bias Reduction in Binary-Response Generalized Linear Models. https://cran.r-project.org/package=brglm.
KOSMIDIS, I. AND FIRTH, D. 2020. Jeffreys-prior penalty, ﬁniteness and shrinkage in binomial-response generalized linear models. Biometrika 108, 1 (Aug.), 71–82.
KRUZICEVIC, S. M., BARISIC, K. J., BANOZIC, A., ESTEBAN, C. D., SAPUNAR, D., AND PULJAK,L. 2012. Predictors of attrition and academic success of medical students: A 30-year retrospective study. PLOS ONE 7, 6 (June), e39144.
KUHN, M. 2020. caret: Classiﬁcation and Regression Training. https://CRAN. R-project.org/package=caret.
KOROSI, G., ESZTELECKI, P., FARKAS, R., AND TOTH, K. 2018. Clickstream-based outcome prediction in short video MOOCs. In 2018 International Conference on Computer, Information and Telecommunication Systems (CITS). 1–5.
LEE, J. D., SUN, D. L., SUN, Y., AND TAYLOR, J. E. 2016. Exact post-selection inference, with application to the lasso. Annals of Statistics 44, 3 (June), 907–927.
LI, T. W. AND PAQUETTE, L. 2020. Erroneous answers categorization for sketching questions in spatial visualization training. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, A. N. Rafferty, J. Whitehill, C. Romero, and V. Cavalli-Sforza, Eds. International EducationalData Mining Society, 148 – 158.
LIAW, A. AND WIENER, M. 2002. Classiﬁcation and regression by randomForest. R News 2, 3, 18–22.
LOCKHART, R., TAYLOR, J., TIBSHIRANI, R. J., AND TIBSHIRANI, R. 2014. A signiﬁcance test for the lasso. Annals of Statistics 42, 2 (Apr.), 413–468.
LOH, W.-Y. 2002. Regression trees with unbiased variable selection and interaction detection. Statistica Sinica 12, 2, 361–386.
LOH, W.-Y. 2009. Improving the precision of classiﬁcation trees. The Annals of Applied Statistics 3, 4(Dec.), 1710–1737.
LOH, W.-Y. AND ZHOU, P. 2021. Variable importance scores. Journal of Data Science 19, 4, 569–592.
MANDUCA, C. A., IVERSON, E. R., LUXENBERG, M., MACDONALD, R. H., MCCONNELL, D. A., MOGK, D. W., AND TEWKSBURY, B. J. 2017. Improving undergraduate STEM education: Theefﬁcacy of discipline-based professional development. Science Advances 3, 2 (Feb.), e1600193.
MCFADDEN, D. 1977. Quantitative methods for analyzing travel behaviour of individuals: Some recent developments. Tech. Rep. 474, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
MCNUTT, L.-A., WU, C., XUE, X., AND HAFNER, J. P. 2003. Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. American Journal of Epidemiology 157, 10 (May),940–943.
MEINSHAUSEN, N. AND B¨UHLMANN, P. 2010. Stability selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 72, 4 (Sept.), 417–473.
MENARD, S. 2000. Coefﬁcients of determination for multiple logistic regression analysis. The American Statistician 54, 1 (Feb.), 17–24.
MENZE, B. H., KELM, B. M., SPLITTHOFF, D. N., KOETHE, U., AND HAMPRECHT, F. A. 2011. Onoblique random forests. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, D. Gunopulos, T. Hofmann, D. Malerba, and M. Vazirgiannis, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer,Berlin, Heidelberg, 453–469.
MOLNAR, C., K¨ONIG, G., BISCHL, B., AND CASALICCHIO, G. 2020. Model-agnostic feature importance and effects with dependent features – a conditional subgroup approach. arXiv:2006.04628 [cs,stat].
MU, T., JETTEN, A., AND BRUNSKILL, E. 2020. Towards suggesting actionable interventions for wheel spinning students. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, A. N. Rafferty, J. Whitehill, C. Romero, and V. Cavalli-Sforza, Eds. International Educational Data Mining Society, 183 – 193.
MARQUEZ-VERA, C., CANO, A., ROMERO, C., AND VENTURA, S. 2013. Predicting student failure at school using genetic programming and different data mining approaches with high dimensional and imbalanced data. Applied Intelligence 38, 3 (Apr.), 315–330.
NAMOUN, A. AND ALSHANQITI, A. 2021. Predicting student performance using data mining and learning analytics techniques: A systematic literature review. Applied Sciences 11, 1, 237.
NEMBRINI, S., K¨ONIG, I. R., AND WRIGHT, M. N. 2018. The revival of the Gini importance? Bioinformatics 34, 21 (Nov.), 3711–3718.
NEMES, S., JONASSON, J. M., GENELL, A., AND STEINECK, G. 2009. Bias in odds ratios by logistic regression modeling and sample size. BMC Medical Research Methodology 9, 56.
NGUYEN, Q., POQUET, O., BROOKS, C., AND LI, W. 2020. Exploring homophily in demographics and academic performance using spatial-temporal student networks. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, A. N. Rafferty, J. Whitehill, C. Romero, and V. Cavalli-Sforza, Eds. International Educational Data Mining Society, 194 – 201.
NICODEMUS, K. K. 2011. Letter to the editor: On the stability and ranking of predictors from random forest variable importance measures. Brieﬁngs in Bioinformatics 12, 4 (July), 369–373.
OGUNDIMU, E. O. 2019. Prediction of default probability by using statistical models for rare events. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 182, 4, 1143–1162.
OJALA, M. AND GARRIGA, G. C. 2010. Permutation tests for studying classiﬁer performance. Journal of Machine Learning Research 11, 1833–1863.
OLIVIER, J. AND BELL, M. L. 2013. Effect sizes for 2×2 contingency tables. PLoS ONE 8, 3 (Mar.),e58777.
OLMUS, H., NAZMAN, E., AND ERBAS, S. 2019. Comparison of penalized logistic regression models for rare event case. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 1–13.
PANGASTUTI, S. S., FITHRIASARI, K., IRIAWAN, N., AND SURYANINGTYAS, W. 2021. Data miningapproach for educational decision support. EKSAKTA: Journal of Sciences and Data Analysis 2, 1(Feb.), 33–44.
PAQUETTE, L., OCUMPAUGH, J., LI, Z., ANDRES, A., AND BAKER, R. 2020. Who’s learning? Using demographics in EDM research. Journal of Educational Data Mining 12, 3 (Oct.), 1–30.
PAVLOU, M., AMBLER, G., SEAMAN, S., DE IORIO, M., AND OMAR, R. Z. 2016. Review and evaluation of penalised regression methods for risk prediction in low-dimensional data with few events. Statistics in Medicine 35, 7, 1159–1177.
PAVLOU, M., AMBLER, G., SEAMAN, S. R., GUTTMANN, O., ELLIOTT, P., KING, M., AND OMAR, R. Z. 2015. How to develop a more accurate risk prediction model when there are few events. BMJ 351, h3868.
PEDUZZI, P., CONCATO, J., KEMPER, E., HOLFORD, T. R., AND FEINSTEIN, A. R. 1996. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 49, 12 (Dec.), 1373–1379.
PELAEZ, K., LEVINE, R., FAN, J., GUARCELLO, M., AND LAUMAKIS, M. 2019. Using a latent class forest to identify at-risk students in higher education. Journal of Educational Data Mining 11, 1(June), 18–46.
PENA-AYALA, A. 2014. Educational data mining: A survey and a data mining-based analysis of recent works. Expert Systems with Applications 41, 4, Part 1 (Mar.), 1432–1462.
POSSELT, J., HERNANDEZ, T., COCHRAN, G., AND MILLER, C. 2019. Metrics ﬁrst, diversity later? Making the shortlist and getting admitted to physics PhD programs. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 25, 4, 283–306.
PROBST, P., WRIGHT, M. N., AND BOULESTEIX, A.-L. 2019. Hyperparameters and tuning strategies for random forest. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 9, 3, e1301.
PUHR, R., HEINZE, G., NOLD, M., LUSA, L., AND GEROLDINGER, A. 2017. Firth’s logistic regression with rare events: Accurate effect estimates and predictions? Statistics in Medicine 36, 14 (June), 2302–2317.
R CORE TEAM. 2018. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
RAHMAN, M. S. AND SULTANA, M. 2017. Performance of Firth- and logF-type penalized methods in risk prediction for small or sparse binary data. BMC Medical Research Methodology 17, 1, 33.
ROMERO, C. AND VENTURA, S. 2020. Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 10, 3, e1355.
ROVIRA, S., PUERTAS, E., AND IGUAL, L. 2017. Data-driven system to predict academic grades and dropout. PLOS ONE 12, 2 (Feb.), e0171207.
SANYAL, D., BOSCH, N., AND PAQUETTE, L. 2020. Feature selection metrics: Similarities, differences, and characteristics of the selected models. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, A. N. Rafferty, J. Whitehill, C. Romero, and V. Cavalli-Sforza, Eds. International Educational Data Mining Society, 212 – 223.
SAX, L. J., LEHMAN, K. J., BARTHELEMY, R. S., AND LIM, G. 2016. Women in physics: A comparison to science, technology, engineering, and math education over four decades. Physical ReviewPhysics Education Research 12, 2 (Aug.), 020108.
SHAFER, D., MAHMOOD, M. S., AND STELZER, T. 2021. Impact of broad categorization on statistical results: How underrepresented minority designation can mask the struggles of both Asian American and African American students. Physical Review Physics Education Research 17, 1 (Mar.), 010113.
SHMUELI, G. 2010. To explain or to predict? Statistical Science 25, 3 (Aug.), 289–310.
SIGNORELL, A. 2020. DescTools: Tools for Descriptive Statistics. https://cran.r-project.org/package=DescTools.
SPOON, K., BEEMER, J., WHITMER, J. C., FAN, J., FRAZEE, J. P., STRONACH, J., BOHONAK, A. J., AND LEVINE, R. A. 2016. Random forests for evaluating pedagogy and informing personalized learning. Journal of Educational Data Mining 8, 2 (Dec.), 20–50.
SPRINGUEL, R. P., WITTMANN, M. C., AND THOMPSON, J. R. 2019. Reconsidering the encoding of data in physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research 15, 2 (July), 020103.
STROBL, C., BOULESTEIX, A.-L., KNEIB, T., AUGUSTIN, T., AND ZEILEIS, A. 2008. Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics 9, 307.
STROBL, C., BOULESTEIX, A.-L., ZEILEIS, A., AND HOTHORN, T. 2007. Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics 8, 25.
SVETNIK, V., LIAW, A., TONG, C., CULBERSON, J. C., SHERIDAN, R. P., AND FEUSTON, B. P.2003. Random forest: A classiﬁcation and regression tool for compound classiﬁcation and QSARmodeling. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 43, 6 (Nov.), 1947–1958.
TAI, R. H., KONG, X., MITCHELL, C. E., DABNEY, K. P., READ, D. M., JEFFE, D. B., ANDRIOLE, D. A., AND WATHINGTON, H. D. 2017. Examining summer laboratory research apprenticeships for high school students as a factor in entry to MD/PhD programs at matriculation. CBE—Life SciencesEducation 16, 2 (June), ar37.
THEOBALD, E. J., AIKENS, M., EDDY, S., AND JORDT, H. 2019. Beyond linear regression: A reference for analyzing common data types in discipline based education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research 15, 2 (July), 020110.
VAN CALSTER, B., VAN SMEDEN, M., DE COCK, B., AND STEYERBERG, E. W. 2020. Regression shrinkage methods for clinical prediction models do not guarantee improved performance: Simulation study. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 29, 11 (Nov.), 3166–3178.
VAN SMEDEN, M., DE GROOT, J. A. H., MOONS, K. G. M., COLLINS, G. S., ALTMAN, D. G.,EIJKEMANS, M. J. C., AND REITSMA, J. B. 2016. No rationale for 1 variable per 10 events criterion for binary logistic regression analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology 16, 163.
VAN SMEDEN, M., MOONS, K. G., DE GROOT, J. A., COLLINS, G. S., ALTMAN, D. G., EIJKEMANS,M. J., AND REITSMA, J. B. 2019. Sample size for binary logistic prediction models: Beyond events per variable criteria. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 28, 8 (Aug.), 2455–2474.
WANG, M., CHEN, X., AND ZHANG, H. 2010. Maximal conditional chi-square importance in random forests. Bioinformatics 26, 6 (Mar.), 831–837.
WOLPERT, D. H. AND MACREADY, W. G. 1997. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 1, 1 (Apr.), 67–82.
W˚ALINDER, A. 2014. Evaluation of logistic regression and random forest classiﬁcation based on prediction accuracy and metadata analysis. Ph. D. thesis, Linnaeus University: Sweden.
YOUNG, N. T., ALLEN, G., AIKEN, J. M., HENDERSON, R., AND CABALLERO, M. D. 2019. Identifying features predictive of faculty integrating computation into physics courses. Physical ReviewPhysics Education Research 15, 1 (Feb.), 010114.
YOUNG, N. T. AND CABALLERO, M. D. 2020. Using machine learning to understand physics graduate school admissions. In 2019 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, Y. Cao, S. Wolf, and M. B. Bennet, Eds. American Association of Physics Teachers, 669–674.
ZHANG, J. AND YU, K. F. 1998. What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA 280, 19 (Nov.), 1690–1691.
ZHAO, Y., XU, Q., CHEN, M., AND WEISS, G. 2020. Predicting student performance in a master’s program in data science using admissions data. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, A. N. Rafferty, J. Whitehill, C. Romero, and V. Cavalli-Sforza, Eds. International Educational Data Mining Society, 325 – 333.
ZOU, H. AND HASTIE, T. 2005. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 67, 2, 301–320.
SINKOVEC, H., HEINZE, G., BLAGUS, R., AND GEROLDINGER, A. 2021. To tune or not to tune, a case study of ridge logistic regression in small or sparse datasets. BMC Medical Research Methodology 21, 1 (Sept.), 199.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons 4.0 License (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- Noncommercial—other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
- No Derivative Works—other users (including Publisher) may not alter, transform, or build upon this Work,with the understanding that any of the above conditions can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
- The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
- Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.