arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2206.12295

Imputation and Missing Indicators for handling missing data in the development and implementation of clinical prediction models: a simulation study

Rose Sisk·Matthew Sperrin·Niels Peek·Maarten van Smeden·Glen P. Martin
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Background: Existing guidelines for handling missing data are generally not consistent with the goals of prediction modelling, where missing data can occur at any stage of the model pipeline. Multiple imputation (MI), often heralded as the gold standard approach, can be challenging to apply in the clinic. Clearly, the outcome cannot be used to impute data at prediction time. Regression imputation (RI) may offer a pragmatic alternative in the prediction context, that is simpler to apply in the clinic. Moreover, the use of missing indicators can handle informative missingness, but it is currently unknown how well they perform within CPMs. Methods: We performed a simulation study where data were generated under various missing data mechanisms to compare the predictive performance of CPMs developed using both imputation methods. We consider deployment scenarios where missing data is permitted/prohibited, and develop models that use/omit the outcome during imputation and include/omit missing indicators. Results: When complete data must be available at deployment, our findings were in line with widely used recommendations; that the outcome should be used to impute development data under MI, yet omitted under RI. When imputation is applied at deployment, omitting the outcome from the imputation at development was preferred. Missing indicators improved model performance in some specific cases, but can be harmful when missingness is dependent on the outcome. Conclusion: We provide evidence that commonly taught principles of handling missing data via MI may not apply to CPMs, particularly when data can be missing at deployment. In such settings, RI and missing indicator methods can (marginally) outperform MI. As shown, the performance of the missing data handling method must be evaluated on a study-by-study basis, and should be based on whether missing data are allowed at deployment.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Rose Sisk, Matthew Sperrin, Niels Peek, Maarten van Smeden, Glen P. Martin. 2022-06-24. Imputation and Missing Indicators for handling missing data in the development and implementation of clinical prediction models: a simulation study. https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.12295

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗