ArticleCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2021
Improving Outcome Predictions for Patients Receiving Mechanical Circulatory Support by Optimizing Imputation of Missing Values.
Article in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2021. 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.
- Methods for Addressing Missingness in Electronic Health Record Data for Clinical Prediction Models: Comparative Evaluation.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Metabolite Predictors of Breast and Colorectal Cancer Risk in the Women's Health Initiative.Metabolites · 2024Article
- Clinical and Socioeconomic Determinants of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Prescription at Hospital Discharge in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.Circulation. Heart failure · 2022Article
- Machine Learning Risk Prediction for Incident Heart Failure in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.JACC. Asia · 2022Article
- Unsupervised clustering reveals phenotypes of AKI in ICU COVID-19 patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRisk prediction models play an important role in clinical decision making. When developing risk prediction models, practitioners often impute missing values to the mean. We evaluated the impact of applying other strategies to impute missing values on the prognostic accuracy of downstream risk prediction models, that is, models fitted to the imputed data. A secondary objective was to compare the accuracy of imputation methods based on artificially induced missing values. To complete these objectives, we used data from the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support.
methodsWe applied 12 imputation strategies in combination with 2 different modeling strategies for mortality and transplant risk prediction following surgery to receive mechanical circulatory support. Model performance was evaluated using Monte-Carlo cross-validation and measured based on outcomes 6 months following surgery using the scaled Brier score, concordance index, and calibration error. We used Bayesian hierarchical models to compare model performance.
resultsMultiple imputation with random forests emerged as a robust strategy to impute missing values, increasing model concordance by 0.0030 (25th-75th percentile: 0.0008-0.0052) compared with imputation to the mean for mortality risk prediction using a downstream proportional hazards model. The posterior probability that single and multiple imputation using random forests would improve concordance versus mean imputation was 0.464 and >0.999, respectively.
conclusionsSelecting an optimal strategy to impute missing values such as random forests and applying multiple imputation can improve the prognostic accuracy of downstream risk prediction models.
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.