Iconography : Localisation primitive « anale et œsophagienne » d'un lymphome non hodgkinien du Malt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multivariate imputation using chained equations (MICE) is a popular algorithm for imputing missing data that entails specifying multivariate models through conditional distributions. For imputing missing continuous variables, two common imputation methods are the use of parametric imputation using a linear model and predictive mean matching. When imputing missing binary variables, the default approach is parametric imputation using a logistic regression model. In the R implementation of MICE, the use of predictive mean matching can be substantially faster than using logistic regression as the imputation model for missing binary variables. However, there is a paucity of research into the statistical performance of predictive mean matching for imputing missing binary variables. Our objective was to compare the statistical performance of predictive mean matching with that of logistic regression for imputing missing binary variables. Monte Carlo simulations were used to compare the statistical performance of predictive mean matching with that of logistic regression for imputing missing binary outcomes when the analysis model of scientific interest was a multivariable logistic regression model. We varied the size of the analysis samples (<i>N</i> = 250, 500, 1,000, 5,000, and 10,000) and the prevalence of missing data (5%-50% in increments of 5%). In general, the statistical performance of predictive mean matching was virtually identical to that of logistic regression for imputing missing binary variables when the analysis model was a logistic regression model. This was true across a wide range of scenarios defined by sample size and the prevalence of missing data. In conclusion, predictive mean matching can be used to impute missing binary variables. The use of predictive mean matching to impute missing binary variables can result in a substantial reduction in computer processing time when conducting simulations of multiple imputation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".