Literature DB >> 33164082

Informative presence and observation in routine health data: A review of methodology for clinical risk prediction.

Rose Sisk1, Lijing Lin1, Matthew Sperrin1, Jessica K Barrett2,3, Brian Tom2, Karla Diaz-Ordaz4, Niels Peek1,5,6, Glen P Martin1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Informative presence (IP) is the phenomenon whereby the presence or absence of patient data is potentially informative with respect to their health condition, with informative observation (IO) being the longitudinal equivalent. These phenomena predominantly exist within routinely collected healthcare data, in which data collection is driven by the clinical requirements of patients and clinicians. The extent to which IP and IO are considered when using such data to develop clinical prediction models (CPMs) is unknown, as is the existing methodology aiming at handling these issues. This review aims to synthesize such existing methodology, thereby helping identify an agenda for future methodological work.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted by 2 independent reviewers using prespecified keywords.
RESULTS: Thirty-six articles were included. We categorized the methods presented within as derived predictors (including some representation of the measurement process as a predictor in the model), modeling under IP, and latent structures. Including missing indicators or summary measures as predictors is the most commonly presented approach amongst the included studies (24 of 36 articles). DISCUSSION: This is the first review to collate the literature in this area under a prediction framework. A considerable body relevant of literature exists, and we present ways in which the described methods could be developed further. Guidance is required for specifying the conditions under which each method should be used to enable applied prediction modelers to use these methods.
CONCLUSIONS: A growing recognition of IP and IO exists within the literature, and methodology is increasingly becoming available to leverage these phenomena for prediction purposes. IP and IO should be approached differently in a prediction context than when the primary goal is explanation. The work included in this review has demonstrated theoretical and empirical benefits of incorporating IP and IO, and therefore we recommend that applied health researchers consider incorporating these methods in their work.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical prediction model; electronic health records; informative observation; informative presence

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33164082      PMCID: PMC7810439          DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa242

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  51 in total

1.  Controlling for Informed Presence Bias Due to the Number of Health Encounters in an Electronic Health Record.

Authors:  Benjamin A Goldstein; Nrupen A Bhavsar; Matthew Phelan; Michael J Pencina
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Prediction and imputation in irregularly sampled clinical time series data using hierarchical linear dynamical models.

Authors:  Abhishek Sengupta; Prathosh Ap; Satya Narayan Shukla; Vaibhav Rajan; Chandan K Reddy
Journal:  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2017-07

3.  A call for consensus guidelines on classification and reporting of methodological studies.

Authors:  Daeria O Lawson; Lehana Thabane; Lawrence Mbuagbaw
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Missing data should be handled differently for prediction than for description or causal explanation.

Authors:  Matthew Sperrin; Glen P Martin; Rose Sisk; Niels Peek
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  A comparison of risk prediction methods using repeated observations: an application to electronic health records for hemodialysis.

Authors:  Benjamin A Goldstein; Gina Maria Pomann; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Michael J Pencina
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Biased and unbiased estimation in longitudinal studies with informative visit processes.

Authors:  Charles E McCulloch; John M Neuhaus; Rebecca L Olin
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Bayesian joint modelling of longitudinal and time to event data: a methodological review.

Authors:  Maha Alsefri; Maria Sudell; Marta García-Fiñana; Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-04-26       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Informative Observation in Health Data: Association of Past Level and Trend with Time to Next Measurement.

Authors:  Matthew Sperrin; Emily Petherick; Ellena Badrick
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2017

9.  A classification framework for exploiting sparse multi-variate temporal features with application to adverse drug event detection in medical records.

Authors:  Francesco Bagattini; Isak Karlsson; Jonathan Rebane; Panagiotis Papapetrou
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2019-01-10       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  Mixed-effects models for health care longitudinal data with an informative visiting process: A Monte Carlo simulation study.

Authors:  Alessandro Gasparini; Keith R Abrams; Jessica K Barrett; Rupert W Major; Michael J Sweeting; Nigel J Brunskill; Michael J Crowther
Journal:  Stat Neerl       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 1.190

View more
  3 in total

1.  Observability and its impact on differential bias for clinical prediction models.

Authors:  Mengying Yan; Michael J Pencina; L Ebony Boulware; Benjamin A Goldstein
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  On the Nature of Informative Presence Bias in Analyses of Electronic Health Records.

Authors:  Glen McGee; Sebastien Haneuse; Brent A Coull; Marc G Weisskopf; Ran S Rotem
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 4.822

3.  Accommodating heterogeneous missing data patterns for prostate cancer risk prediction.

Authors:  Matthias Neumair; Michael W Kattan; Stephen J Freedland; Alexander Haese; Lourdes Guerrios-Rivera; Amanda M De Hoedt; Michael A Liss; Robin J Leach; Stephen A Boorjian; Matthew R Cooperberg; Cedric Poyet; Karim Saba; Kathleen Herkommer; Valentin H Meissner; Andrew J Vickers; Donna P Ankerst
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 4.612

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.