Missing data in FFQs: making assumptions about item non-response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: FFQs are a popular method of capturing dietary information in epidemiological studies and may be used to derive dietary exposures such as nutrient intake or overall dietary patterns and diet quality. As FFQs can involve large numbers of questions, participants may fail to respond to all questions, leaving researchers to decide how to deal with missing data when deriving intake measures. The aim of the present commentary is to discuss the current practice for dealing with item non-response in FFQs and to propose a research agenda for reporting and handling missing data in FFQs. RESULTS: Single imputation techniques, such as zero imputation (assuming no consumption of the item) or mean imputation, are commonly used to deal with item non-response in FFQs. However, single imputation methods make strong assumptions about the missing data mechanism and do not reflect the uncertainty created by the missing data. This can lead to incorrect inference about associations between diet and health outcomes. Although the use of multiple imputation methods in epidemiology has increased, these have seldom been used in the field of nutritional epidemiology to address missing data in FFQs. We discuss methods for dealing with item non-response in FFQs, highlighting the assumptions made under each approach. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers analysing FFQs should ensure that missing data are handled appropriately and clearly report how missing data were treated in analyses. Simulation studies are required to enable systematic evaluation of the utility of various methods for handling item non-response in FFQs under different assumptions about the missing data mechanism.
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 | 0.455 | 0.756 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".