Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28830304›Full record

ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2019

Improved conditional imputation for linear regression with a randomly censored predictor.

Folefac D Atem, Emmanuel Sampene, Thomas J Greene

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Extrapolation before imputation reduces bias when imputing censored covariates.Journal of computational and graphical statistics : a joint publication of American Statistical Association, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Interface Foundation of North America · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Cox regression model with randomly censored covariates.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Folefac D Atem1 UT Health, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1142-7806
Emmanuel Sampene2 UW School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Thomas J Greene1 UT Health, Houston, TX, USA.
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USUniversity of Wisconsin Health · US

Funding

Training Program in Biostatistics at UTHSCH-SPHT32GM074902 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI DESANTIS, STACIA · 2006 to 2018
$1.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM074902
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article describes a nonparametric conditional imputation analytic method for randomly censored covariates in linear regression. While some existing methods make assumptions about the distribution of covariates or underestimate standard error due to lack of imputation error, the proposed approach is distribution-free and utilizes resampling to correct for variance underestimation. The performance of the novel method is assessed using simulations, and results are contrasted with methods currently used for a limit of detection censored design, including the complete case approach and other nonparametric approaches. Theoretical justifications for the proposed method are provided, and its application is demonstrated through a study of association between lipoprotein cholesterol in offspring and parental history of cardiovascular disease.

Indexed as

Linear ModelsAlgorithmsCardiovascular DiseasesComputer SimulationGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansHyperlipidemiasProportional Hazards ModelsBootstrapcensored covariatecomplete caseconditional imputationmultiple imputation

Identifiers

PMID28830304
PMCPMC5826819
OpenAlexW2748809547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.