A fair comparison of tree‐based and parametric methods in multiple imputation by chained equations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) has emerged as a leading strategy for imputing missing epidemiological data due to its ease of implementation and ability to maintain unbiased effect estimates and valid inference. Within the MICE algorithm, imputation can be performed using a variety of parametric or nonparametric methods. Literature has suggested that nonparametric tree-based imputation methods outperform parametric methods in terms of bias and coverage when there are interactions or other nonlinear effects among the variables. However, these studies fail to provide a fair comparison as they do not follow the well-established recommendation that any effects in the final analysis model (including interactions) should be included in the parametric imputation model. We show via simulation that properly incorporating interactions in the parametric imputation model leads to much better performance. In fact, correctly specified parametric imputation and tree-based random forest imputation perform similarly when estimating the interaction effect. Parametric imputation leads to slightly higher coverage for the interaction effect, but it has wider confidence intervals than random forest imputation and requires correct specification of the imputation model. Epidemiologists should take care in specifying MICE imputation models, and this paper assists in that task by providing a fair comparison of parametric and tree-based imputation in MICE.
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 | 0.129 | 0.352 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".