ArticleHealth services research2023
Using machine-learning algorithms to improve imputation in the medical expenditure panel survey.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expanding Training Data for Structure-Based Receptor-Ligand Binding Affinity Regression through Imputation of Missing Labels.ACS omega · 2023Article
- Using machine-learning algorithms to improve imputation in the medical expenditure panel survey.Health services research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.