4.5 Article

Sample size considerations and predictive performance of multinomial logistic prediction models

Journal

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 38, Issue 9, Pages 1601-1619

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.8063

Keywords

Multinomial Logistic Regression; overfit; prediction models; predictive performance; shrinkage

Funding

  1. Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research) [918.10.615]
  2. Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Research Foundation Flanders) [G0B4716N]
  3. INTERNE FONDSEN KU Leuven (Internal Funds KU Leuven) [C24/15/037]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR) has been advocated for developing clinical prediction models that distinguish between three or more unordered outcomes. We present a full-factorial simulation study to examine the predictive performance of MLR models in relation to the relative size of outcome categories, number of predictors and the number of events per variable. It is shown that MLR estimated by Maximum Likelihood yields overfitted prediction models in small to medium sized data. In most cases, the calibration and overall predictive performance of the multinomial prediction model is improved by using penalized MLR. Our simulation study also highlights the importance of events per variable in the multinomial context as well as the total sample size. As expected, our study demonstrates the need for optimism correction of the predictive performance measures when developing the multinomial logistic prediction model. We recommend the use of penalized MLR when prediction models are developed in small data sets or in medium sized data sets with a small total sample size (ie, when the sizes of the outcome categories are balanced). Finally, we present a case study in which we illustrate the development and validation of penalized and unpenalized multinomial prediction models for predicting malignancy of ovarian cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available