Papers › Combining missing data imputation and internal validation in clinical risk prediction models

Combining missing data imputation and internal validation in clinical risk prediction models

21 Nov 2024arXiv:2411.14542links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Junhui Mi, Rahul D. Tendulkar, Sarah M. C. Sittenfeld, Sujata Patil, Emily C. Zabor

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Methods to handle missing data have been extensively explored in the context of estimation and descriptive studies, with multiple imputation being the most widely used method in clinical research. However, in the context of clinical risk prediction models, where the goal is often to achieve high prediction accuracy and to make predictions for future patients, there are different considerations regarding the handling of missing data. As a result, deterministic imputation is better suited to the setting of clinical risk prediction models, since the outcome is not included in the imputation model and the imputation method can be easily applied to future patients. In this paper, we provide a tutorial demonstrating how to conduct bootstrapping followed by deterministic imputation of missing data to construct and internally validate the performance of a clinical risk prediction model in the presence of missing data. Extensive simulation study results are provided to help guide decision-making in real-world applications.

PaperPDFCode

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections