  We investigate the problem of calibration and assessment of predictive rules
in prognostic designs when missing values are present in the predictors. Our
paper has two key objectives which are entwined. The first is to investigate
how the calibration of the prediction rule can be combined with the use of
multiple imputation to account for missing predictor observations. The second
objective is to propose such methods that can be implemented with current
multiple imputation software, while allowing for unbiased predictive assessment
through validation on new observations for which outcome is not yet available.
  To inform the definition of methodology, we commence with a review of the
theoretical background of multiple imputation as a model estimation approach as
opposed to a purely algorithmic description. We specifically contrast
application of multiple imputation for parameter (effect) estimation with
predictive calibration. Based on this review, two approaches are formulated, of
which the second utilizes application of the classical Rubin's rules for
parameter estimation, while the first approach averages probabilities from
models fitted on single imputations to directly approximate the predictive
density for future observations. We present implementations using current
software which allow for validatory or cross-validatory estimation of
performance measures, as well as imputation of missing data in predictors on
the future data where outcome is by definition as yet unobserved.
  We restrict discussion to binary outcome and logistic regression throughout,
though the principles discussed are generally applicable. We present two data
sets as examples from our regular consultative practice. Results show little
difference between methods for accuracy but substantial reductions in variation
of calibrated probabilities when using the first approach.
