Comparing imputation approaches to handle systematically missing inputs in risk calculators.

PLOS digital health Pub Date : 2025-01-30 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000712
Anja Mühlemann, Philip Stange, Antoine Faul, Serena Lozza-Fiacco, Rowan Iskandar, Manuela Moraru, Susanne Theis, Petra Stute, Ben D Spycher, David Ginsbourger
{"title":"Comparing imputation approaches to handle systematically missing inputs in risk calculators.","authors":"Anja Mühlemann, Philip Stange, Antoine Faul, Serena Lozza-Fiacco, Rowan Iskandar, Manuela Moraru, Susanne Theis, Petra Stute, Ben D Spycher, David Ginsbourger","doi":"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Risk calculators based on statistical and/or mechanistic models have flourished and are increasingly available for a variety of diseases. However, in the day-to-day practice, their usage may be hampered by missing input variables. Certain measurements needed to calculate disease risk may be difficult to acquire, e.g. because they necessitate blood draws, and may be systematically missing in the population of interest. We compare several deterministic and probabilistic imputation approaches to surrogate predictions from risk calculators while accounting for uncertainty due to systematically missing inputs. The considered approaches predict missing inputs from available ones. In the case of probabilistic imputation, this leads to probabilistic prediction of the risk. We compare the methods using scoring techniques for forecast evaluation, with a focus on the Brier and CRPS scores. We also discuss the classification of patients into risk groups defined by thresholding predicted probabilities. While the considered procedures are not meant to replace fully-informed risk calculations, employing them to get first indications of risk distribution in the absence of at least one input parameter may find useful applications in medical practice. To illustrate this, we use the SCORE2 risk calculator for cardiovascular disease and a data set including medical data from 359 women, obtained from the gynecology department at the Inselspital in Bern, Switzerland. Using this data set, we mimic the situation where some input parameters, blood lipids and blood pressure, are systematically missing and compute the SCORE2 risk by probabilistic imputation of the missing variables based on the remaining input variables. We compare this approach to established imputation techniques like MICE by means of scoring rules and visualize in turn how probabilistic imputation can be used in sample size considerations.</p>","PeriodicalId":74465,"journal":{"name":"PLOS digital health","volume":"4 1","pages":"e0000712"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11781665/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000712","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Risk calculators based on statistical and/or mechanistic models have flourished and are increasingly available for a variety of diseases. However, in the day-to-day practice, their usage may be hampered by missing input variables. Certain measurements needed to calculate disease risk may be difficult to acquire, e.g. because they necessitate blood draws, and may be systematically missing in the population of interest. We compare several deterministic and probabilistic imputation approaches to surrogate predictions from risk calculators while accounting for uncertainty due to systematically missing inputs. The considered approaches predict missing inputs from available ones. In the case of probabilistic imputation, this leads to probabilistic prediction of the risk. We compare the methods using scoring techniques for forecast evaluation, with a focus on the Brier and CRPS scores. We also discuss the classification of patients into risk groups defined by thresholding predicted probabilities. While the considered procedures are not meant to replace fully-informed risk calculations, employing them to get first indications of risk distribution in the absence of at least one input parameter may find useful applications in medical practice. To illustrate this, we use the SCORE2 risk calculator for cardiovascular disease and a data set including medical data from 359 women, obtained from the gynecology department at the Inselspital in Bern, Switzerland. Using this data set, we mimic the situation where some input parameters, blood lipids and blood pressure, are systematically missing and compute the SCORE2 risk by probabilistic imputation of the missing variables based on the remaining input variables. We compare this approach to established imputation techniques like MICE by means of scoring rules and visualize in turn how probabilistic imputation can be used in sample size considerations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Developing a youth-friendly internet-enabled HIV risk calculator: A collaborative approach with young key populations, living in Soweto, South Africa. Comparing imputation approaches to handle systematically missing inputs in risk calculators. Specialty-specific Evaluation of Virtual care Outcomes: A retrospective QUality and safety analysis (S-EVOQUe). Explore barriers to using the internet for health information access in African countries: A systematic review. A comparison of CXR-CAD software to radiologists in identifying COVID-19 in individuals evaluated for Sars CoV-2 infection in Malawi and Zambia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1