Assessment of the Performance of Imputation Techniques in Observational Studies with Two Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In observational studies with two measurements when the measured outcome pertains to a health related quality of life (HRQoL) variable, one motivation of the research may be to determine the potential predictors of the mean change of the outcome of interest. It is very common in such studies for data to be missing, which can bias the results. Different imputation techniques have been proposed to cope with missing data in outcome variables. We compared five analysis approaches (Complete Case, Available Case, K- Nearest Neighbour, Propensity Score, and a Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm) to assess their performance when handling missing data at different missingness rates and mechanisms (MCAR, MAR and MNAR). These strategies were applied to a pre-post study of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. We analyzed the relationship of the changes in subjects HRQoL over one year with clinical and socio-demographic characteristics. A simulation study was also performed to illustrate the performance of the imputation methods. Relative and standardized bias was assessed on each scenario. For all missingness mechanisms, not imputing and using MCMC method, both combined with mixed-model analysis, showed lowest standardized bias. Conversely, Propensity Score showed worst bias values. When missingness pattern is MCAR or MAR and rate small, we recommend using mixed models. Nevertheless, when missingness percentage is high, in order to gain sample size and statistical power, MCMC is preferred, although there are no bias differences compared with the mixed models without imputation. For a MNAR scenario, a further sensitivity analysis should be made.
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 | 0.306 | 0.477 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".