Cited by 7Statistical Methods and InferenceMachine Learning in HealthcareStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Risk prediction with imperfect survival outcome information from electronic health records

Open access
Hou, Jue, Chan, Stephanie F., Wang, Xuan, Cai, Tianxi·2023·Biometrics

Abstract

Readily available proxies for the time of disease onset such as the time of the first diagnostic code can lead to substantial risk prediction error if performing analyses based on poor proxies. Due to the lack of detailed documentation and labor intensiveness of manual annotation, it is often only feasible to ascertain for a small subset the current status of the disease by a follow‐up time rather than the exact time. In this paper, we aim to develop risk prediction models for the onset time efficiently leveraging both a small number of labels on the current status and a large number of unlabeled observations on imperfect proxies. Under a semiparametric transformation model for onset and a highly flexible measurement error model for proxy onset time, we propose the semisupervised risk prediction method by combining information from proxies and limited labels efficiently. From an initially estimator solely based on the labeled subset, we perform a one‐step correction with the full data augmenting against a mean zero rank correlation score derived from the proxies. We establish the consistency and asymptotic normality of the proposed semisupervised estimator and provide a resampling procedure for interval estimation. Simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed estimator performs well in a finite sample. We illustrate the proposed estimator by developing a genetic risk prediction model for obesity using data from Mass General Brigham Healthcare Biobank.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/biom.13599

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Documentation timestamps reflect when events are recorded rather than when they occur, introducing systematic errors that can distort event sequencing, bias time-to-event analyses, and undermine model validity.

    “Documentation timestamps are often used as surrogates for disease onset; however, they reflect when events are recorded rather than when they occur, introducing systematic errors that can distort event sequencing, bias time-to-event analyses, and undermine model validity9–12.”

    From TimeX: Phenotype Onset Extraction from Clinical Narratives (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Introduction (page not available) says that EHR diagnostic-code and note timings are imperfect proxies for true event time, and that using proxy times in risk models can cause substantial bias. It does not specifically establish that documentation timestamps systematically distort event sequencing or undermine model validity beyond that bias. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Antolini L, Boracchi P, and Biganzoli E (2005) A time-dependent discrimination index for survival data. Statistics in Medicine, 24, 3927– 3944. 16320281
  2. Braun D, Gorfine M, Katki HA, Ziogas A, and Parmigiani G (2018) Nonparametric adjustment for measurement error in time to event data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113, 11– 25. PMC6077989 30093737
  3. Cai T and Cheng S (2007) Robust combination of multiple diagnostic tests for classifying censored event times. Biostatistics, 9, 216– 233. 18056687
  4. Calvert J, Mao Q, Hoffman JL, Jay M, Desautels T, Mohamadlou H, (2016) Using electronic health record collected clinical variables to predict medical intensive care unit mortality. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 11, 52– 57. 27699003 PMC5037117
  5. Carroll RJ, Fan J, Gijbels I, and Wand MP (1997) Generalized partially linear single-index models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 92, 477– 489.
  6. Chakraborty B, Murphy S, and Strecher V (2010) Inference for non-regular parameters in optimal dynamic treatment regimes. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 19, 317– 343. 19608604 PMC2891316
  7. Chen L and Sun J (2010) A multiple imputation approach to the analysis of interval-censored failure time data with the additive hazards model. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 54, 1109– 1116. 25419022 PMC4240511
  8. Eapen ZJ, Liang L, Fonarow GC, Heidenreich PA, Curtis LH, Peterson ED, (2013) Validated, electronic health record deployable prediction models for assessing patient risk of 30-day rehospitalization and mortality in older heart failure patients. JACC: Heart Failure, 1, 245– 251. 24621877
  9. GBD 2015 Obesity Collaborators, (2017) Health effects of overweight and obesity in 195 countries over 25 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 377, 13– 27. 28604169 PMC5477817
  10. Gravel CA, Dewanji A, Farrell PJ, and Krewski D (2018) A validation sampling approach for consistent estimation of adverse drug reaction risk with misclassified right-censored survival data. Statistics in Medicine, 37, 3887– 3903. 30084171
  11. Han AK (1987) Non-parametric analysis of a generalized regression model: the maximum rank correlation estimator. Journal of Econometrics, 35, 303– 316.
  12. Huang J (1996) Efficient estimation for the proportional hazards model with interval censoring. The Annals of Statistics, 24, 540– 568.
  13. Huang J and Rossini A (1997) Sieve estimation for the proportional-odds failure-time regression model with interval censoring. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 92, 960– 967.
  14. Hung C-F, Breen G, Czamara D, Corre T, Wolf C, Kloiber S, (2015) A genetic risk score combining 32 SNPs is associated with body mass index and improves obesity prediction in people with major depressive disorder. BMC Medicine, 13, 86. 25903154 PMC4407390
  15. Jin B, Che C, Liu Z, Zhang S, Yin X, and Wei X (2018) Predicting the risk of heart failure with EHR sequential data modeling. IEEE Access, 6, 9256– 9261.
  16. Kosoy R, Nassir R, Tian C, White PA, Butler LM, Silva G, (2009) Ancestry informative marker sets for determining continental origin and admixture proportions in common populations in America. Human Mutation, 30, 69– 78. 18683858 PMC3073397
  17. Laber EB. and Murphy SA (2011) Adaptive confidence intervals for the test error in classification. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106, 904– 913. 22053123 PMC3285493
  18. Liao KP, Sun J, Cai TA, Link N, Hong C, Huang J, (2019) High-throughput multimodal automated phenotyping (MAP) with application to PheWAS. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 26, 1255– 1262. 31613361 PMC6798574
  19. Oh EJ, Shepherd BE, Lumley T, and Shaw PA (2018) Considerations for analysis of time-to-event outcomes measured with error: bias and correction with Simex. Statistics in Medicine, 37, 1276– 1289. 29193180 PMC5810403
  20. Oh EJ, Shepherd BE, Lumley T, and Shaw PA (2021) Raking and regression calibration: methods to address bias from correlated covariate and time-to-event error. Statistics in Medicine, 40, 631– 649. 33140432 PMC7874496
  21. Rossini A and Tsiatis A (1996) A semiparametric proportional odds regression model for the analysis of current status data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 713– 721.
  22. Sherman RP. (1993) The limiting distribution of the maximum rank correlation estimator. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 61, 123– 137.
  23. Speliotes EK, Wilier CJ, Berndt SI, Monda KL, Thorleifsson G, Jackson AU, (2010) Association analyses of 249,796 individuals reveal 18 new loci associated with body mass index. Nature Genetics, 42, 937. 20935630 PMC3014648
  24. Sun J and Sun L (2005) Semiparametric linear transformation models for current status data. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 33, 85– 96.
  25. Uno H, Ritzwoller DP, Cronin AM, Carroll NM, Hornbrook MC, and Hassett MJ (2018) Determining the time of cancer recurrence using claims or electronic medical record data. JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, 2, 1– 10. PMC6338474 30652573
  26. Van DerLaan MJ and Robins JM (1998) Locally efficient estimation with current status data and time-dependent covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 93, 693– 701.
  27. Wang Y and Beydoun MA (2007) The obesity epidemic in the United States-gender, age, socioeconomic, racial/ethnic, and geographic characteristics: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Epidemiologic Reviews, 29, 6– 28. 17510091
  28. Zeng D, Mao L, and Lin DY (2016) Maximum likelihood estimation for semiparametric transformation models with interval-censored data. Biometrika, 103, 253– 271. 27279656 PMC4890294

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hou, J., Chan, S. F., Wang, X., & Cai, T.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Cai, Tianxi
Venue
Biometrics
Published
2021-11-22
Volume
79
Issue
1
Pages
190-202
ISSN
  • 0006-341X (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0420
OpenAlex
W3213686283
Cited by
7
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biometrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL089778)
  • National Cancer Institute (R21CA242940)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM013614)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
risk prediction, electronic health records, semi-supervised learning, measurement error models, semiparametric transformation models, data augmentation, rank correlation, genetic risk prediction, obesity, interval estimation
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Computer Simulation, Risk Factors, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review