↓ Skip to main content

Sparse conditional logistic regression for analyzing large-scale matched data from epidemiological studies: a simple algorithm

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sparse conditional logistic regression for analyzing large-scale matched data from epidemiological studies: a simple algorithm
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-16-s6-s1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marta Avalos, Hélène Pouyes, Yves Grandvalet, Ludivine Orriols, Emmanuel Lagarde

Abstract

This paper considers the problem of estimation and variable selection for large high-dimensional data (high number of predictors p and large sample size N, without excluding the possibility that N < p) resulting from an individually matched case-control study. We develop a simple algorithm for the adaptation of the Lasso and related methods to the conditional logistic regression model. Our proposal relies on the simplification of the calculations involved in the likelihood function. Then, the proposed algorithm iteratively solves reweighted Lasso problems using cyclical coordinate descent, computed along a regularization path. This method can handle large problems and deal with sparse features efficiently. We discuss benefits and drawbacks with respect to the existing available implementations. We also illustrate the interest and use of these techniques on a pharmacoepidemiological study of medication use and traffic safety.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 12 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Mathematics 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 14 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2015.
All research outputs
#15,331,767
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,372
of 7,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,484
of 264,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#112
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.