A New Technique for Evaluating Land-use Regression Models and Their Impact on Health Effect Estimates.
A New Technique for Evaluating Land-use Regression Models and Their Impact on Health Effect Estimates.
复制标题
评估土地利用回归模型及其对健康影响估计的影响的新技术。
DOI：
10.1097/ede.0000000000000404
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Beelen,Rob
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wang,Meng;Brunekreef,Bert;Gehring,Ulrike;Szpiro,Adam;Hoek,Gerard;Beelen,Rob
背景：留一法交叉验证未能考虑变量选择，当训练点数量较少时，不能正确反映预测准确性。对健康影响估计的影响很少进行研究。本研究的目的是开发一种改进的验证程序，为土地利用回归模型与变量选择和调查健康影响估计土地利用回归模型performance.Methods：我们随机产生了10个训练和测试集的二氧化氮和颗粒物。对于每个训练集，我们开发了模型，并使用交叉保持验证方法对其进行评估。交叉保留验证为每个评估开发新的模型，而不是像标准的留一交叉验证那样在没有变量选择的情况下重新构建模型。我们还实现了holdout验证，它使用独立的测试集来评估模型预测。我们评估了交叉保留验证和保留验证R 2之间的关系，并估计空气污染和用力肺活量之间的关联在荷兰birth coherent.Results：交叉保留验证R 2 s一般相同，保留验证R 2 s，但明显小于留一出交叉验证R 2 s。对于具有较大的保留验证和交叉保留验证R2的土地利用回归模型，与空气污染暴露相关的用力肺活量下降幅度较大。结论：交叉保留验证准确反映了土地利用回归模型的预测能力，是一种适用于小数据集的有效验证方法。土地利用回归预测能力，坚持验证和交叉坚持验证，而不是留一出交叉验证与健康影响估计的幅度在一个案例研究。
Background:Leave-one-out cross-validation that fails to account for variable selection does not properly reflect prediction accuracy when the number of training sites is small. The impact on health effect estimates has rarely been studied. The objective of this study was to develop an improved validation procedure for land-use regression models with variable selection and investigate health effect estimates in relation to land-use regression model performance.Methods:We randomly generated 10 training and test sets for nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter. For each training set, we developed models and evaluated them using a cross–holdout validation approach. Cross–holdout validation develops new models for each evaluation compared with refitting the model without variable selection, as in standard leave-one-out cross-validation. We also implemented holdout validation, which evaluates model predictions using independent test sets. We evaluated the relationship between cross–holdout validation and holdout validation R 2 and estimates of the association between air pollution and forced vital capacity in the Dutch birth cohort.Results:Cross–holdout validation R 2 s were generally identical to holdout validation R 2 s, but were notably smaller than leave-one-out cross-validation R 2 s. Decreases in forced vital capacity in relation to air pollution exposure were larger for land-use regression models that had larger holdout validation and cross–holdout validation R 2 s rather than leave-one-out cross-validation R 2.Conclusion:Cross–holdout validation accurately reflects predictive ability of land-use regression models and is a useful validation approach for small datasets. Land-use regression predictive ability in terms of holdout validation and cross–holdout validation rather than leave-one-out cross-validation was associated with the magnitude of health effect estimates in a case study.