Effect of Variable Selection Strategy on the Performance of Prognostic Models When Using Multiple Imputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Variable selection is an important issue when developing prognostic models. Missing data occur frequently in clinical research. Multiple imputation is increasingly used to address the presence of missing data in clinical research. The effect of different variable selection strategies with multiply imputed data on the external performance of derived prognostic models has not been well examined. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used backward variable selection with 9 different ways to handle multiply imputed data in a derivation sample to develop logistic regression models for predicting death within 1 year of hospitalization with an acute myocardial infarction. We assessed the prognostic accuracy of each derived model in a temporally distinct validation sample. The derivation and validation samples consisted of 11 524 patients hospitalized between 1999 and 2001 and 7889 patients hospitalized between 2004 and 2005, respectively. We considered 41 candidate predictor variables. Missing data occurred frequently, with only 13% of patients in the derivation sample and 31% of patients in the validation sample having complete data. Regardless of the significance level for variable selection, the prognostic model developed using only the complete cases in the derivation sample had substantially worse performance in the validation sample than did the models for which variables were selected using the multiply imputed versions of the derivation sample. The other 8 approaches to handling multiply imputed data resulted in prognostic models with performance similar to one another. CONCLUSIONS: Ignoring missing data and using only subjects with complete data can result in the derivation of prognostic models with poor performance. Multiple imputation should be used to account for missing data when developing prognostic models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.226 | 0.340 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".