MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065974896 · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2393

Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls

2009· article· en· W2065974896 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan A C Sterne, Ian R. White, John B. Carlin, Michael Spratt, Patrick Royston, Michael G. Kenward, Angela Wood, James R. Carpenter

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsImputation (statistics)Missing dataComputer scienceData scienceData miningStatisticsEconometricsMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most studies have some missing data. <b>Jonathan Sterne and colleagues</b> describe the appropriate use and reporting of the multiple imputation approach to dealing with them

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.561
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.753
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5610.753
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0080.020
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.015
Open science0.0110.009
Research integrity0.0110.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.602
GPT teacher head0.613
Teacher spread0.010 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7,164
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207