Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30622091›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2019

A New Insight Into Missing Data in Intensive Care Unit Patient Profiles: Observational Study.

Anis Sharafoddini, Joel A Dubin, David M Maslove, Joon Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Personalized event prediction for Electronic Health Records.Artificial intelligence in medicine · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Anis SharafoddiniHealth Data Science Lab, School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4231-8116
Joel A DubinHealth Data Science Lab, School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9863-7752
David M MasloveDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0765-7158
Joon LeeHealth Data Science Lab, School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8593-9321

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe data missing from patient profiles in intensive care units (ICUs) are substantial and unavoidable. However, this incompleteness is not always random or because of imperfections in the data collection process.

objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the potential hidden information in data missing from electronic health records (EHRs) in an ICU and examine whether the presence or missingness of a variable itself can convey information about the patient health status.

methodsDaily retrieval of laboratory test (LT) measurements from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database was set as our reference for defining complete patient profiles. Missingness indicators were introduced as a way of representing presence or absence of the LTs in a patient profile. Thereafter, various feature selection methods (filter and embedded feature selection methods) were used to examine the predictive power of missingness indicators. Finally, a set of well-known prediction models (logistic regression [LR], decision tree, and random forest) were used to evaluate whether the absence status itself of a variable recording can provide predictive power. We also examined the utility of missingness indicators in improving predictive performance when used with observed laboratory measurements as model input. The outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality and mortality at 30 days after ICU discharge.

resultsRegardless of mortality type or ICU day, more than 40% of the predictors selected by feature selection methods were missingness indicators. Notably, employing missingness indicators as the only predictors achieved reasonable mortality prediction on all days and for all mortality types (for instance, in 30-day mortality prediction with LR, we achieved area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] of 0.6836±0.012). Including indicators with observed measurements in the prediction models also improved the AUROC; the maximum improvement was 0.0426. Indicators also improved the AUROC for Simplified Acute Physiology Score II model-a well-known ICU severity of illness score-confirming the additive information of the indicators (AUROC of 0.8045±0.0109 for 30-day mortality prediction for LR).

conclusionsOur study demonstrated that the presence or absence of LT measurements is informative and can be considered a potential predictor of in-hospital and 30-day mortality. The comparative analysis of prediction models also showed statistically significant prediction improvement when indicators were included. Moreover, missing data might reflect the opinions of examining clinicians. Therefore, the absence of measurements can be informative in ICUs and has predictive power beyond the measured data themselves. This initial case study shows promise for more in-depth analysis of missing data and its informativeness in ICUs. Future studies are needed to generalize these results.

Indexed as

clinical laboratory testselectronic health recordshospital mortalitymachine learning

Identifiers

PMID30622091
PMCPMC6329436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.