Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41237368›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025

Methods for Addressing Missingness in Electronic Health Record Data for Clinical Prediction Models: Comparative Evaluation.

Jean Digitale, Deborah Franzon, Mark J Pletcher, Charles E McCulloch, Efstathios D Gennatas

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

Jean DigitaleNational Clinician Scholars Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6909-8478
Deborah FranzonDepartment of Pediatrics, Benioff Children's Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0009-0008-9905-6448
Mark J PletcherDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, 550 16th St, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94158, United States, 1 (415) 476-2300.ORCID 0000-0002-6966-1312
Charles E McCullochDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, 550 16th St, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94158, United States, 1 (415) 476-2300.ORCID 0000-0002-1279-6179
Efstathios D GennatasDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, 550 16th St, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94158, United States, 1 (415) 476-2300.ORCID 0000-0001-9280-3609

Funding

Predicting earliest safe extubation time in pediatric patientsF31HL156498 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI DIGITALE, JEAN · 2021 to 2023
$118k
NHLBI NIH HHS F31 HL156498
6 · The paper itself

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

Electronic Health RecordsChildHumansIntensive Care Units, PediatricMachine Learningclinical prediction modelselectronic health recordimputationmachine learningmissing data

Identifiers

PMID41237368
PMCPMC12617989

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.