ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Comparing imputation approaches to handle systematically missing inputs in risk calculators.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Auxiliary Data as Surrogates for Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation Model Version 2 Risk Calculator Inputs: Design and Methodology of the Frauenherzen Study in Apparently Healthy Women Aged 40-69 Years.Gynecologic and obstetric investigation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.