ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
Methods for Addressing Missingness in Electronic Health Record Data for Clinical Prediction Models: Comparative Evaluation.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prediction models for infection after kidney transplantation: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- A Hierarchical Machine Learning-Based Framework for Clinical Decision Support in Foot Orthosis Prescription: Algorithm Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Observational
- Article
- From Medical Records to AI-Ready Datasets: A Practical Guide for Clinical Researchers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A Machine Learning Approach for Predicting 30-Day Hospital Readmission in Patients with Diabetes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From static snapshots to longitudinal trajectories: artificial intelligence in women's reproductive and ovarian health.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Development and internal validation of machine learning models for gouty arthritis classification using routine clinical variables: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Development and external validation of an explainable machine learning model for in-hospital mortality risk stratification in intensive care unit patients with heart failure.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for predicting atrial fibrillation risk in middle-aged and older patients with coronary heart disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Missing data are a common challenge in electronic health record (EHR)-based prediction modeling. Traditional imputation methods may not suit prediction or machine learning models, and real-world use requires workflows that are implementable for both model development and real-time prediction. Objective: We evaluated methods for handling missing data when using EHR data to build clinical prediction models for patients admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Methods: Using EHR data containing missing values from an academic medical center PICU, we generated a synthetic complete dataset. From this, we created 300 datasets with missing data under varying mechanisms and proportions of missingness for the outcomes of (1) successful extubation (binary) and (2) blood pressure (continuous). We assessed strategies to address missing data including simple methods (eg, last observation carried forward [LOCF]), complex methods (eg, random forest multiple imputation), and native support for missing values in outcome prediction models. Results: Across 886 patients and 1220 intubation events, 18.2% of original data were missing. LOCF had the lowest imputation error, followed by random forest imputation (average mean squared error [MSE] improvement over mean imputation: 0.41 [range: 0.30, 0.50] and 0.33 [0.21, 0.43], respectively). LOCF generally outperformed other imputation methods across outcome metrics and models (mean improvement: 1.28% [range: -0.07%, 7.2%]). Imputation methods showed more performance variability for the binary outcome (balanced accuracy coefficient of variation: 0.042) than the continuous outcome (mean squared error coefficient of variation: 0.001). Conclusions: Traditional imputation methods for inferential statistics, such as multiple imputation, may not be optimal for prediction models. The amount of missingness influenced performance more than the missingness mechanism. In datasets with frequent measurements, LOCF and native support for missing values in machine learning models offer reasonable performance for handling missingness at minimal computational cost in predictive analyses.
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.