Practical Strategies for Extreme Missing Data Imputation in Dementia Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate computational models for clinical decision support systems require clean and reliable data but, in clinical practice, data are often incomplete. Hence, missing data could arise not only from training datasets but also test datasets which could consist of a single undiagnosed case, an individual. This work addresses the problem of extreme missingness in both training and test data by evaluating multiple imputation and classification workflows based on both diagnostic classification accuracy and computational cost. Extreme missingness is defined as having ∼50% of the total data missing in more than half the data features. In particular, we focus on dementia diagnosis due to long time delays, high variability, high attrition rates and lack of practical data imputation strategies in its diagnostic pathway. We identified and replicated the extreme missingness structure of data from a real-world memory clinic on a larger open dataset, with the original complete data acting as ground truth. Overall, we found that computational cost, but not accuracy, varies widely for various imputation and classification approaches. Particularly, we found that iterative imputation on the training dataset combined with a reduced-feature classification model provides the best approach, in terms of speed and accuracy. Taken together, this work has elucidated important factors to be considered when developing a predictive model for a dementia diagnostic support system.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".