Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Jun;134:22-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.003. Epub 2021 Jan 19.
In clinical practice, many prediction models cannot be used when predictor values are missing. We, therefore, propose and evaluate methods for real-time imputation.
We describe (i) mean imputation (where missing values are replaced by the sample mean), (ii) joint modeling imputation (JMI, where we use a multivariate normal approximation to generate patient-specific imputations), and (iii) conditional modeling imputation (CMI, where a multivariable imputation model is derived for each predictor from a population). We compared these methods in a case study evaluating the root mean squared error (RMSE) and coverage of the 95% confidence intervals (i.e., the proportion of confidence intervals that contain the true predictor value) of imputed predictor values.
-RMSE was lowest when adopting JMI or CMI, although imputation of individual predictors did not always lead to substantial improvements as compared to mean imputation. JMI and CMI appeared particularly useful when the values of multiple predictors of the model were missing. Coverage reached the nominal level (i.e., 95%) for both CMI and JMI.
Multiple imputations using either CMI or JMI is recommended when dealing with missing predictor values in real-time settings.
在临床实践中,当预测值缺失时,许多预测模型无法使用。因此,我们提出并评估了实时插补的方法。
我们描述了(i)均值插补(用样本均值替换缺失值),(ii)联合建模插补(JMI,其中我们使用多元正态逼近生成患者特异性插补),以及(iii)条件建模插补(CMI,其中从人群中为每个预测变量导出多变量插补模型)。我们在一个案例研究中比较了这些方法,该研究评估了插补预测值的均方根误差(RMSE)和 95%置信区间(即包含真实预测值的置信区间的比例)的覆盖率。
-采用 JMI 或 CMI 时,RMSE 最低,尽管与均值插补相比,个别预测器的插补并不总是会导致实质性的改善。当模型的多个预测值缺失时,JMI 和 CMI 似乎特别有用。CMI 和 JMI 的覆盖率均达到了名义水平(即 95%)。
在实时设置中处理缺失预测值时,建议使用 CMI 或 JMI 进行多次插补。