Imputation and Missing Indicators for Handling Missing Longitudinal Data: Data Simulation Analysis Based on Electronic Health Record Data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Missing data in electronic health records are highly prevalent and result in analytical concerns such as heterogeneous sources of bias and loss of statistical power. One simple analytic method for addressing missing or unknown covariate values is to treat missingness for a particular variable as a category onto itself, which we refer to as the missing indicator method. For cross-sectional analyses, recent work suggested that there was minimal benefit to the missing indicator method; however, it is unclear how this approach performs in the setting of longitudinal data, in which correlation among clustered repeated measures may be leveraged for potentially improved model performance. objectives: This study aims to conduct a simulation study to evaluate whether the missing indicator method improved model performance and imputation accuracy for longitudinal data mimicking an application of developing a clinical prediction model for falls in older adults based on electronic health record data. Methods: We simulated a longitudinal binary outcome using mixed effects logistic regression that emulated a falls assessment at annual follow-up visits. Using multivariate imputation by chained equations, we simulated time-invariant predictors such as sex and medical history, as well as dynamic predictors such as physical function, BMI, and medication use. We induced missing data in predictors under scenarios that had both random (missing at random) and dependent missingness (missing not at random). We evaluated aggregate performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for models with and with no missing indicators as predictors, as well as complete case analysis, across simulation replicates. We evaluated imputation quality using normalized root-mean-square error for continuous variables and percent falsely classified for categorical variables. Results: Independent of the mechanism used to simulate missing data (missing at random or missing not at random), overall model performance via AUROC was similar regardless of whether missing indicators were included in the model. The root-mean-square error and percent falsely classified measures were similar for models including missing indicators versus those with no missing indicators. Model performance and imputation quality were similar regardless of whether the outcome was related to missingness. Imputation with or with no missing indicators had similar mean values of AUROC compared with complete case analysis, although complete case analysis had the largest range of values. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the inclusion of missing indicators in longitudinal data modeling neither improves nor worsens overall performance or imputation accuracy. Future research is needed to address whether the inclusion of missing indicators is useful in prediction modeling with longitudinal data in different settings, such as high dimensional data 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it