ArticleHealth information science and systems2017
The effect of imputing missing clinical attribute values on training lung cancer survival prediction model performance.
Article in Health information science and systems, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a Machine Learning Model for Predicting Treatment-Related Amenorrhea in Young Women with Breast Cancer.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Peritoneal cytology predicting distant metastasis in uterine carcinosarcoma: machine learning model development and validation.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- The METRIC-framework for assessing data quality for trustworthy AI in medicine: a systematic review.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Review
- On Predicting Recurrence in Early Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2021Article
- An ontology-based documentation of data discovery and integration process in cancer outcomes research.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Imputation techniques on missing values in breast cancer treatment and fertility data.Health information science and systems · 2019Article
- Guest editorial: special issue on "Artificial Intelligence in Health and Medicine".Health information science and systems · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to the estimations of the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research in Cancer, lung cancer is the most common cause of death from cancer worldwide. The last few years have witnessed a rise in the attention given to the use of clinical decision support systems in medicine generally and in cancer in particular. These can predict patients' likelihood of survival based on analysis of and learning from previously treated patients. The datasets that are mined for developing clinical decision support functionality are often incomplete, which adversely impacts the quality of the models developed and the decision support offered. Imputing missing data using a statistical analysis approach is a common method to addressing the missing data problem. This work investigates the effect of imputation methods for missing data in preparing a training dataset for a Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer survival prediction model using several machine learning algorithms. The investigation includes an assessment of the effect of imputation algorithm error on performance prediction and also a comparison between using a smaller complete real dataset or a larger dataset with imputed data. Our results show that even when the proportion of records with some missing data is very high (> 80%) imputation can lead to prediction models with an AUC (0.68-0.72) comparable to those trained with complete data records.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.