Multiple Imputation to Correct for Nonresponse Bias: Application in Non-communicable Disease Risk Factors Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was carried out to use multiple imputation (MI) in order to correct for the potential nonresponse bias in measurements related to variable fasting blood glucose (FBS) in non-communicable disease risk factors survey conducted in Iran in 2007. METHODS: Five multiple imputation methods as bootstrap expectation maximization, multivariate normal regression, univariate linear regression, MI by chained equation, and predictive mean matching were applied to impute variable fasting blood sugar. To make FBS consistent with normality assumption natural logarithm (Ln) and Box-Cox (BC) transformations were used prior to imputation. Measurements from which we intended to remove nonresponse bias included mean of FBS and percentage of those with high FBS. RESULTS: For mean of FBS results didn't considerably change after applying MI methods. Regarding the prevalence of high blood sugar all methods on original scale tended to increase the estimates except for predictive mean matching that along with all methods on BC or Ln transformed data didn't change the results. CONCLUSIONS: FBS-related measurements didn't change after applying different MI methods. It seems that nonresponse bias was not an important challenge regarding these measurements. However use of MI methods resulted in more efficient estimations. Further studies are encouraged on accuracy of MI methods in these settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.090 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".