Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39243025›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Handling missing data and measurement error for early-onset myopia risk prediction models.

Hongyu Lai, Kaiye Gao, Meiyan Li, Tao Li, Xiaodong Zhou, Xingtao Zhou, Hui Guo, Bo Fu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. 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

8 authors.

Hongyu LaiSchool of Data Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Kaiye GaoSchool of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China.
Meiyan LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, EYE & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Tao LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Jinshan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xiaodong ZhouDepartment of Ophthalmology, Jinshan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xingtao ZhouDepartment of Ophthalmology, EYE & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Hui GuoCentre for Biostatistics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Bo FuSchool of Data Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. fu@fudan.edu.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 12071089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly identification of children at high risk of developing myopia is essential to prevent myopia progression by introducing timely interventions. However, missing data and measurement error (ME) are common challenges in risk prediction modelling that can introduce bias in myopia prediction.

methodsWe explore four imputation methods to address missing data and ME: single imputation (SI), multiple imputation under missing at random (MI-MAR), multiple imputation with calibration procedure (MI-ME), and multiple imputation under missing not at random (MI-MNAR). We compare four machine-learning models (Decision Tree, Naive Bayes, Random Forest, and Xgboost) and three statistical models (logistic regression, stepwise logistic regression, and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression) in myopia risk prediction. We apply these models to the Shanghai Jinshan Myopia Cohort Study and also conduct a simulation study to investigate the impact of missing mechanisms, the degree of ME, and the importance of predictors on model performance. Model performance is evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC).

resultsOur findings indicate that in scenarios with missing data and ME, using MI-ME in combination with logistic regression yields the best prediction results. In scenarios without ME, employing MI-MAR to handle missing data outperforms SI regardless of the missing mechanisms. When ME has a greater impact on prediction than missing data, the relative advantage of MI-MAR diminishes, and MI-ME becomes more superior. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that statistical models exhibit better prediction performance than machine-learning models.

conclusionMI-ME emerges as a reliable method for handling missing data and ME in important predictors for early-onset myopia risk prediction.

Indexed as

Machine LearningMyopiaAge of OnsetBayes TheoremChildChinaCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleModels, StatisticalRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsROC CurveEarly-onset myopiaMeasurement errorMissing dataMissing mechanismsMultiple imputationRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID39243025
PMCPMC11378546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.