MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4229039606 · doi:10.1101/2022.05.03.490388

A real data-driven simulation strategy to select an imputation method for mixed-type trait data

2022· preprint· en· W4229039606 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline A. May, Zeny Feng, Sarah J. Adamowicz

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissing dataImputation (statistics)Categorical variableRandom forestStatisticsTraitType I and type II errorsMultivariate statisticsComputer scienceMean squared errorData miningMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Missing observations in trait datasets pose an obstacle for analyses in myriad biological disciplines. Considering the mixed results of imputation, the wide variety of available methods, and the varied structure of real trait datasets, a framework for selecting a suitable imputation method is advantageous. We invoked a real data-driven simulation strategy to select an imputation method for a given mixed-type (categorical, count, continuous) target dataset. Candidate methods included mean/mode imputation, k -nearest neighbour, random forests, and multivariate imputation by chained equations (MICE). Using a trait dataset of squamates (lizards and amphisbaenians; order: Squamata) as a target dataset, a complete-case dataset consisting of species with nearly complete information was formed for the imputation method selection. Missing data were induced by removing values from this dataset under different missingness mechanisms: missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR), and missing not at random (MNAR). For each method, combinations with and without phylogenetic information from single gene (nuclear and mitochondrial) or multigene trees were used to impute the missing values for five numerical and two categorical traits. The performances of the methods were evaluated under each missing mechanism by determining the mean squared error and proportion falsely classified rates for numerical and categorical traits, respectively. A random forest method supplemented with a nuclear-derived phylogeny resulted in the lowest error rates for the majority of traits, and this method was used to impute missing values in the original dataset. Data with imputed values better reflected the characteristics and distributions of the original data compared to complete-case data. However, caution should be taken when imputing trait data as phylogeny did not always improve performance for every trait and in every scenario. Ultimately, these results support the use of a real data-driven simulation strategy for selecting a suitable imputation method for a given mixed-type trait dataset. Author summary The issue of missing data is problematic in trait datasets as the missingness pattern may not be entirely random. Whether data are missing may depend on other known observations in the dataset, or on the value of the missing data points themselves. When only complete cases are used in an analysis, derived results may be biased. Imputation is an alternative to complete-case analysis and entails filling in the missing values using information provided by other trait values present in the dataset. Including phylogenetic information in the imputation process can improve the accuracy of imputed values, though results are dependent on the amount and pattern of missingness. Most previous evaluations of imputation methods for trait datasets are limited to numerical simulated data, with categorical traits not considered. Given a particular dataset, we propose the use of a real data-driven simulation strategy to select an imputation method. We evaluated the accuracies of four different imputation methods, with and without phylogeny information, and under different simulated missingness patterns using an example reptile trait dataset. Results indicated that data imputed using the best-performing method better reflected the original dataset characteristics compared to complete-case data. As imputation performance varies depending on the properties of a given dataset, a real data-driven simulation strategy can be used to provide guidance on best imputation practices.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.277 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies→French-language works237,207→