Having constructed a data-based estimation rule, perhaps a logistic regression or a classification tree, the statistician would like to know its performance as a predictor of future cases. There are two main theories concerning prediction error: (1) penalty methods such as Cp, Akaike's information criterion, and Stein's unbiased risk estimate that depend on the covariance between data points and their corresponding predictions; and (2) cross-validation and related nonparametric bootstrap techniques. This article concerns the connection between the two theories. A Rao–Blackwell type of relation is derived in which nonparametric methods such as cross-validation are seen to be randomized versions of their covariance penalty counterparts. The model-based penalty methods offer substantially better accuracy, assuming that the model is believable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bradley Efron (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: