MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791458756 · doi:10.2196/medinform.8960

Characterizing and Managing Missing Structured Data in Electronic Health Records: Data Analysis

2018· article· en· W2791458756 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brett K. Beaulieu‐Jones, Daniel R. Lavage, John W Snyder, Jason H. Moore, Sarah A. Pendergrass, Christopher R. Bauer

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Human Genome Research InstituteUniversity of PennsylvaniaNational Institutes of HealthPennsylvania Department of Health
KeywordsMissing dataImputation (statistics)Health recordsComputer scienceData scienceElectronic health recordData miningHealth careMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Missing data is a challenge for all studies; however, this is especially true for electronic health record (EHR)-based analyses. Failure to appropriately consider missing data can lead to biased results. While there has been extensive theoretical work on imputation, and many sophisticated methods are now available, it remains quite challenging for researchers to implement these methods appropriately. Here, we provide detailed procedures for when and how to conduct imputation of EHR laboratory results. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to demonstrate how the mechanism of missingness can be assessed, evaluate the performance of a variety of imputation methods, and describe some of the most frequent problems that can be encountered. METHODS: We analyzed clinical laboratory measures from 602,366 patients in the EHR of Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, USA. Using these data, we constructed a representative set of complete cases and assessed the performance of 12 different imputation methods for missing data that was simulated based on 4 mechanisms of missingness (missing completely at random, missing not at random, missing at random, and real data modelling). RESULTS: Our results showed that several methods, including variations of Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) and softImpute, consistently imputed missing values with low error; however, only a subset of the MICE methods was suitable for multiple imputation. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses we describe provide an outline of considerations for dealing with missing EHR data, steps that researchers can perform to characterize missingness within their own data, and an evaluation of methods that can be applied to impute clinical data. While the performance of methods may vary between datasets, the process we describe can be generalized to the majority of structured data types that exist in EHRs, and all of our methods and code are publicly available.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.162
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.385
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1620.385
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations174
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207