Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 28, 2025

Cutoff Value of Phase Angle by Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis at Admission as a Prognostic Factor in Patients with Acute Heart Failure
Published on: June 10, 2025
Handling missing values in machine learning to predict patient-specific risk of adverse cardiac events: Insights from
Richard Rios1, Robert J H Miller2, Nipun Manral3
1Departments of Medicine (Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), Imaging, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede de La Paz, GAUNAL, La Paz, Colombia.
Background:
Machine learning (ML) models can improve prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), but in clinical practice some values may be missing. We evaluated the influence of missing values in ML models for patient-specific prediction of MACE risk.
Methods:
We included 20,179 patients from the multicenter REFINE SPECT registry with MACE follow-up data. We evaluated seven methods for handling missing values: 1) removal of variables with missing values (ML-Remove), 2) imputation with median and unique category for continuous and categorical variables, respectively (ML-Traditional), 3) unique category for missing variables (ML-Unique), 4) cluster-based imputation (ML-Cluster), 5) regression-based imputation (ML-Regression), 6) missRanger imputation (ML-MR), and 7) multiple imputation (ML-MICE). We trained ML models with full data and simulated missing values in testing patients. Prediction performance was evaluated using area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared with a model without missing values (ML-All), expert visual diagnosis and total perfusion deficit (TPD).
Results:
During mean follow-up of 4.7 ± 1.5 years, 3,541 patients experienced at least one MACE (3.7% annualized risk). ML-All (reference model-no missing values) had AUC 0.799 for MACE risk prediction. All seven models with missing values had lower AUC (ML-Remove: 0.778, ML-MICE: 0.774, ML-Cluster: 0.771, ML-Traditional: 0.771, ML-Regression: 0.770, ML-MR: 0.766, and ML-Unique: 0.766; p < 0.01 for ML-Remove vs remaining methods). Stress TPD (AUC 0.698) and visual diagnosis (0.681) had the lowest AUCs.
Conclusion:
Missing values reduce the accuracy of ML models when predicting MACE risk. Removing variables with missing values and retraining the model may yield superior patient-level prediction performance.
More Related Videos
04:09Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published on: October 10, 2018
12:18A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
Published on: January 11, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Cardiomyopathy III: Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...