ArticleIranian journal of public health2012
Assessment of Internal Validity of Prognostic Models through Bootstrapping and Multiple Imputation of Missing Data.
Article in Iranian journal of public health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comprehensive characterization of clonality of driver genes revealing their clinical relevance in colorectal cancer.Journal of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Development and external validation of predictive models for prevalent and recurrent atrial fibrillation: a protocol for the analysis of the CATCH ME combined dataset.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2019Article
- Bootstrap inference when using multiple imputation.Statistics in medicine · 2018Article
- Model-based Recursive Partitioning for Survival of Iranian Female Breast Cancer Patients: Comparing with Parametric Survival Models.Iranian journal of public health · 2017Article
- A Comparison between Cure Model and Recursive Partitioning: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Iranian Female with Breast Cancer.Computational and mathematical methods in medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrognostic models have clinical appeal to aid therapeutic decision making. Two main practical challenges in development of such models are assessment of validity of models and imputation of missing data. In this study, importance of imputation of missing data and application of bootstrap technique in development, simplification, and assessment of internal validity of a prognostic model is highlighted.
methodsOverall, 310 breast cancer patients were recruited. Missing data were imputed 10 times. Then to deal with sensitivity of the model due to small changes in the data (internal validity), 100 bootstrap samples were drawn from each of 10 imputed data sets leading to 1000 samples. A Cox regression model was fitted to each of 1000 samples. Only variables retained in more than 50% of samples were used in development of final model.
resultsFour variables retained significant in more than 50% (i.e. 500 samples) of bootstrap samples; tumour size (91%), tumour grade (64%), history of benign breast disease (77%), and age at diagnosis (59%). Tumour size was the strongest predictor with inclusion frequency exceeding 90%. Number of deliveries was correlated with age at diagnosis (r=0.35, P<0.001). These two variables together retained significant in more than 90% of samples.
conclusionWe addressed two important methodological issues using a cohort of breast cancer patients. The algorithm combines multiple imputation of missing data and bootstrapping and has the potential to be applied in all kind of regression modelling exercises so as to address internal validity of models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23113185PMC3468987What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.