Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39883597›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2025

Comparing imputation approaches to handle systematically missing inputs in risk calculators.

Anja Mühlemann, Philip Stange, Antoine Faul, Serena Lozza-Fiacco, Rowan Iskandar, Manuela Moraru, Susanne Theis, Petra Stute, Ben D Spycher, David Ginsbourger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Anja MühlemannInstitute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Philip StangeInstitute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9675-0419
Antoine FaulInstitute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Serena Lozza-FiaccoGynäkopsychiatrie, Psychiatrie St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Rowan IskandarCenter for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.
Manuela MoraruDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Women's Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.
Susanne TheisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Petra StuteDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Women's Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5591-1552
Ben D SpycherInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
David GinsbourgerInstitute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2724-2678

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk calculators based on statistical and/or mechanistic models have flourished and are increasingly available for a variety of diseases. However, in the day-to-day practice, their usage may be hampered by missing input variables. Certain measurements needed to calculate disease risk may be difficult to acquire, e.g. because they necessitate blood draws, and may be systematically missing in the population of interest. We compare several deterministic and probabilistic imputation approaches to surrogate predictions from risk calculators while accounting for uncertainty due to systematically missing inputs. The considered approaches predict missing inputs from available ones. In the case of probabilistic imputation, this leads to probabilistic prediction of the risk. We compare the methods using scoring techniques for forecast evaluation, with a focus on the Brier and CRPS scores. We also discuss the classification of patients into risk groups defined by thresholding predicted probabilities. While the considered procedures are not meant to replace fully-informed risk calculations, employing them to get first indications of risk distribution in the absence of at least one input parameter may find useful applications in medical practice. To illustrate this, we use the SCORE2 risk calculator for cardiovascular disease and a data set including medical data from 359 women, obtained from the gynecology department at the Inselspital in Bern, Switzerland. Using this data set, we mimic the situation where some input parameters, blood lipids and blood pressure, are systematically missing and compute the SCORE2 risk by probabilistic imputation of the missing variables based on the remaining input variables. We compare this approach to established imputation techniques like MICE by means of scoring rules and visualize in turn how probabilistic imputation can be used in sample size considerations.

Identifiers

PMID39883597
PMCPMC11781665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.