MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980332746 · doi:10.1177/0165025419880609

Missing data treatments in intervention studies: What was, what is, and what should be

2019· article· en· W2980332746 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Charlie Rioux, Todd D. Little

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMissing dataPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Data collectionPsychologyImputation (statistics)Data miningData scienceComputer scienceStatisticsMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Missing data are ubiquitous in studies examining preventive interventions. This missing data need to be handled appropriately for data analyses to yield unbiased results. After a brief discussion of missing data mechanisms, inappropriate missing data treatments and appropriate missing data treatments, we review the current state of missing data treatments in intervention studies as well as how they have evolved over the years. Although missing data treatments have improved over the years, antiquated missing data treatments associated with biased results are still prevalent. Furthermore, many studies do not appropriately report their rates of missing data and missing data treatments. Using appropriate missing data treatments is elemental to accurately identify effective preventive interventions and properly inform practice and policy.

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)0.254
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.427
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2540.427
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.014
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0100.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.327
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations65
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207