LASSO-Based Survival Prediction Modeling with Multiply Imputed Data: A Case Study in Tuberculosis Mortality Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utilizing health administrative datasets for developing prediction models is always challenging due to missing values in key predictors. Multiple imputation has been recommended to deal with missing predictor values. However, predicting survival outcomes using regularized regression, e.g., Cox-LASSO, faces limitations as these methods are incompatible with pooling model outputs from multiple imputed data using Rubin’s rule. In this study, we explored the performance of three statistical methods in developing prediction models with Cox-LASSO on multiply imputed data: prediction average, performance average, and stacked. We considered two hyperparameter selection techniques: minimum-lambda that gives the minimum cross-validated prediction error and 1SE-lambda that selects more parsimonious models. We also conducted plasmode simulations with varying the events per parameter. The stacked approach provided the most robust predictions in our case study of predicting tuberculosis mortality and simulations, producing a time-dependent c-statistic of 0.93 and a well-calibrated calibration plot. The 1SE-lambda technique resulted in underfitting of the models in most scenarios, both in case study and simulation. Our findings advocate the stacked method with minimum-lambda as an effective technique for combining LASSO-based prediction outputs from multiply imputed data. We shared reproducible R codes for future researchers to facilitate the adoption of these methodologies in their research.
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 | 0.030 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".