Missing data is poorly handled and reported in prediction model studies using machine learning: a literature review.

Area of Science:

• Medical research
• Machine learning
• Prediction models

Background:

• Missing data is a pervasive challenge in developing and evaluating prediction models.
• Machine learning (ML) methods are often perceived as capable of handling missing data, but their application in medical research lacks clarity.
• There is a need to assess how ML-based prediction model studies report their strategies for managing missing data.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the extent and methods of missing data reporting in ML-based clinical prediction model studies.
• To evaluate the quality of reporting regarding the amount, nature, and handling of missing data in these studies.

Main Methods:

• Systematic literature search of primary studies published between 2018-2019.
• Inclusion of studies developing or validating clinical prediction models using supervised ML methodologies.
• Extraction of data on missing data presence, characteristics, and handling methods.

Main Results:

• 152 ML-based clinical prediction model studies were identified.
• 56% (56/152) of studies did not report on missing data.
• Of those reporting, many failed to specify the amount of missingness (46/96), reasons for missingness (7/96), or data mechanisms (8/96).
• Deletion methods, particularly complete-case analysis (43/96), were the most common approach (65/96).
• Multiple imputation (8/96) and built-in ML mechanisms (7/96) were rarely used.

Conclusions:

• A majority of ML prediction model studies provide insufficient information on missing data.
• Commonly used deletion strategies can introduce bias and reduce analytical power.
• Researchers should improve reporting transparency and consider advanced methodologies for handling missing data.