Paper detail

The Effect of Multiple Imputation of Routine Pathology Variables on Laboratory Diagnosis of Hepatitis C Infection

Pathology tests are central to modern healthcare in terms of diagnosis and patient management. Aggregated pathology results provide opportunities for research into fundamental and applied questions in health and medicine, but data analytic challenges appear since test profiles vary between medical practitioners, resulting in missing data. In this study we provide an analytical investigation of the laboratory diagnosis of Hepatitis C (HCV) infection and focus on how to maximize the predictive value of routine pathology data. We recommend using the Influx - Outflux measures to help construct the imputation model when using multiple imputation. Data from 14,320 community-patients aged 15 - 100 years were accessed via ACT Pathology (The Canberra Hospital, Australia). Influx and Outflux were calculated to identify which variables were potentially powerful predictors of missing values. Available Case analysis and Multiple Imputation were used to accommodate missing values in the dataset. Logistic regression model and stepwise selection method were used for analysing the imputed datasets. The predictive power of all methods was compared. The predictive power of the models on multiply imputed data was similar to the power of the models based on complete data. The advantage of multiply imputed data was that it allowed for the inclusion of all the completed variables in the logistic models, thus identifying a broader selection of test results that could lead to the enhanced laboratory prediction of HCV. Multiple imputation is an important statistical resource allowing all individuals in a study to contribute whatever data they have supplied to the analysis. MI in combination with the values of Influx and Outflux identifies potential predictors of HepC infection. Variables age, gender and alanine aminotransferase have been shown to be strong laboratory predictors of HCV infection.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.