ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2021
Real-time imputation of missing predictor values in clinical practice.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methods for Addressing Missingness in Electronic Health Record Data for Clinical Prediction Models: Comparative Evaluation.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- A data management system for precision medicine.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Addressing the implementation challenge of risk prediction model due to missing risk factors: The submodel approximation approach.Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
- Machine learning approaches toward an understanding of acute kidney injury: current trends and future directions.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Review
- The use of imputation in clinical decision support systems: a cardiovascular risk management pilot vignette study among clinicians.European heart journal. Digital health · 2024Article
- A Comparative Study on Imputation Techniques: Introducing a Transformer Model for Robust and Efficient Handling of Missing EEG Amplitude Data.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Lifestyle predictors of colorectal cancer in European populations: a systematic review.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2024Article
- Missing Data in Sport Science: A Didactic Example Using Wearables in American Football.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models developed or validated using clustered data (TRIPOD-Cluster): explanation and elaboration.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Exploring Impact of Marijuana (Cannabis) Abuse on Adults Using Machine Learning.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Real-time handling of missing predictors.European heart journal. Digital health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Use of prediction models is widely recommended by clinical guidelines, but usually requires complete information on all predictors, which is not always available in daily practice. We aim to describe two methods for real-time handling of missing predictor values when using prediction models in practice. Methods and results: We compare the widely used method of mean imputation (M-imp) to a method that personalizes the imputations by taking advantage of the observed patient characteristics. These characteristics may include both prediction model variables and other characteristics (auxiliary variables). The method was implemented using imputation from a joint multivariate normal model of the patient characteristics (joint modelling imputation; JMI). Data from two different cardiovascular cohorts with cardiovascular predictors and outcome were used to evaluate the real-time imputation methods. We quantified the prediction model's overall performance [mean squared error (MSE) of linear predictor], discrimination (c-index), calibration (intercept and slope), and net benefit (decision curve analysis). When compared with mean imputation, JMI substantially improved the MSE (0.10 vs. 0.13), c-index (0.70 vs. 0.68), and calibration (calibration-in-the-large: 0.04 vs. 0.06; calibration slope: 1.01 vs. 0.92), especially when incorporating auxiliary variables. When the imputation method was based on an external cohort, calibration deteriorated, but discrimination remained similar. Conclusions: We recommend JMI with auxiliary variables for real-time imputation of missing values, and to update imputation models when implementing them in new settings or (sub)populations.
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.