2021
DOI: 10.32996/jmss.2021.2.1.2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Solving Multicollinearity Problem in Linear Regression Model: The Review Suggests New Idea of Partitioning and Extraction of the Explanatory Variables

Abstract: Multicollinearity has remained a major problem in regression analysis and should be sustainably addressed. Problems associated with multicollinearity are worse when it occurs at high level among regressors. This review revealed that studies on the subject have focused on developing estimators regardless of effect of differences in levels of multicollinearity among regressors. Studies have considered single-estimator and combined-estimator approaches without sustainable solution to multicollinearity problems. T… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 38 publications
(45 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The lack of overlap may be due to the limited sample size of our data. Many statistical methods have such issues with multicollinearity [68]. However, most of these studies [13] mainly focus on tongue and floor-of-the-mouth cancer patients, whose clinical behaviors as well as molecular and immunoproteome profile may be different from GBSCC, a cancer predominant in the tobacco-chewing population of South Asia [5].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The lack of overlap may be due to the limited sample size of our data. Many statistical methods have such issues with multicollinearity [68]. However, most of these studies [13] mainly focus on tongue and floor-of-the-mouth cancer patients, whose clinical behaviors as well as molecular and immunoproteome profile may be different from GBSCC, a cancer predominant in the tobacco-chewing population of South Asia [5].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%