Imputation strategies for missing baseline neurological assessment covariates after traumatic brain injury: A CENTER-TBI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Statistical models for outcome prediction are central to traumatic brain injury research and critical to baseline risk adjustment. Glasgow coma score (GCS) and pupil reactivity are crucial co-variates in all such models but may be measured at multiple time points between the time of injury and hospital and are subject to a variable degree of unreliability and/or missingness. Imputation of missing data may be undertaken using full multiple imputation or by simple substitution of measurements from other time points. However it is unknown which strategy is best or which time points are more predictive. We evaluated the pseudo- R 2 of logistic regression models (dichotomous survival) and proportional odds models (Glasgow Outcome Score-extended) using different imputation strategies from data from the The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. Substitution strategies were easy to implement, achieved low levels of missingness ( << 10%) and could outperform multiple imputation without the need for computationally costly calculations and pooling multiple final models. Model performance was sensitive to imputation strategy although this was small in absolute terms and clinical relevance. A strategy of using the emergency department discharge assessments and working back in time when these were missing generally performed well. Full multiple imputation had the advantage of preserving time-dependence in the models: The pre-hospital assessments were found to be relatively unreliable predictors of survival or outcome. The predictive performance of later assessments was model-dependent. In conclusion, simple substitution strategies for imputing baseline GCS and pupil response can perform well and may be a simple alternative to full multiple imputation in many cases.
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 | 0.109 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".