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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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