Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36495183›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2023

Using machine-learning algorithms to improve imputation in the medical expenditure panel survey.

Chandler McClellan, Emily Mitchell, Jerrod Anderson, Samuel Zuvekas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Chandler McClellanAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9439-9002
Emily MitchellAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Jerrod AndersonAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Samuel ZuvekasAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the feasibility of applying machine learning (ML) methods to imputation in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). DATA SOURCES: All data come from the 2016-2017 MEPS. STUDY

designCurrently, expenditures for medical encounters in the MEPS are imputed with a predictive mean matching (PMM) algorithm in which a linear regression model is used to predict expenditures for events with (donors) and without (recipients) data. Recipient events and donor events are then matched based on the smallest distance between predicted expenditures, and the donor event's expenditures are used as the recipient event's imputation. We replace linear regression algorithm in the PMM framework with ML methods to predict expenditures. We examine five alternatives to linear regression: Gradient Boosting, Random Forests, Extreme Random Forests, Deep Neural Networks, and a Stacked Ensemble approach. Additionally, we introduce an alternative matching scheme, which matches on a vector of predicted expenditures by sources of payment instead of a single total expenditure prediction to generate potentially superior matches. DATA COLLECTION: Study data is derived from a large federal survey. PRINCIPAL

findingsML algorithms perform better at both prediction and matching imputation than Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), the most common prediction algorithm used in PMM. On average, the Stacked Ensemble approach that combines all the ML algorithms performs best, improving expenditure prediction R

conclusionsML algorithms and an alternative matching scheme improve the overall quality of expenditure PMM imputation in the MEPS. These methods may have additional value in other national surveys that currently rely on PMM or similar methods for imputation.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsHealth ExpendituresHumansLinear ModelsMachine LearningSurveys and Questionnairesimputationmachine learningmedical expendituresMEPSpredictive mean matching

Identifiers

PMID36495183
PMCPMC10012220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.