Comparison of likelihood penalization and variance decomposition approaches for clinical prediction models: A simulation study

Abstract

Logistic regression is one of the most commonly used approaches to develop clinical risk prediction models. Developers of such models often rely on approaches that aim to minimize the risk of overfitting and improve predictive performance of the logistic model, such as through likelihood penalization and variance decomposition techniques. We present an extensive simulation study that compares the out-of-sample predictive performance of risk prediction models derived using the elastic net, with Lasso and ridge as special cases, and variance decomposition techniques, namely, incomplete principal component regression and incomplete partial least squares regression. We varied the expected events per variable, event fraction, number of candidate predictors, presence of noise predictors, and the presence of sparse predictors in a full-factorial design. Predictive performance was compared on measures of discrimination, calibration, and prediction error. Simulation metamodels were derived to explain the performance differences within model derivation approaches. Our results indicate that, on average, prediction models developed using penalization and variance decomposition approaches outperform models developed using ordinary maximum likelihood estimation, with penalization approaches being consistently superior over the variance decomposition approaches. Differences in performance were most pronounced on the calibration of the model. Performance differences regarding prediction error and concordance statistic outcomes were often small between approaches. The use of likelihood penalization and variance decomposition techniques methods was illustrated in the context of peripheral arterial disease.