The impact of different imputation methods on estimates and model performance: an example using a risk prediction model for premature mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To compare how different imputation methods affect the estimates and performance of a prediction model for premature mortality. Study Design and Setting Sex-specific Weibull accelerated failure time survival models were run on four separate datasets using complete case, mode, single and multiple imputation to impute missing values. Six performance measures were compared to access predictive accuracy (Nagelkerke R 2 , integrated brier score), discrimination (Harrell’s c-index, discrimination slope) and calibration (calibration in the large, calibration slope). Results The highest proportion of missingness for a single variable was 10.86% for the female model and 8.24% for the male model. Comparing the performance measures for complete case, mode, single and multiple imputation: the Nagelkerke R 2 values for the female model was 0.1084, 0.1116, 0.1120 and 0.111–0.1120 with the male model exhibited similar variation of 0.1050, 0.1078, 0.1078 and 0.1078–0.1081. Harrell’s c-index also demonstrated small variation with values of 0.8666, 0.8719, 0.8719 and 0.8711–0.8719 for the female model and 0.8549, 0.8548, 0.8550 and 0.8550–0.8553 for the male model. Conclusion In the scenarios examined in this study, mode imputation performed well when using a population health survey compared to single and multiple imputation when predictive performance measures is the main model goal. To generate unbiased hazard ratios, multiple imputation methods were superior. This study shows the need to consider the best imputation approach for a predictive model development given the conditions of missing data and the goals of the analysis.
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 | 0.080 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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; 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".