Pay Attention to the Ignorable Missing Data Mechanisms! An Exploration of Their Impact on the Efficiency of Regression Coefficients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of modern missing data techniques has become more prevalent with their increasing accessibility in statistical software. These techniques focus on handling data that are missing at random (MAR). Although all MAR mechanisms are routinely treated as the same, they are not equal. The impact of missing data on the efficiency of parameter estimates can differ for different MAR variations, even when the amount of missing data is held constant; yet, in current practice, only the rate of missing data is reported. The impact of MAR on the loss of efficiency can instead be more directly measured by the fraction of missing information (FMI). In this article, we explore this impact using FMIs in regression models with one and two predictors. With the help of a Shiny application, we demonstrate that efficiency loss due to missing data can be highly complex and is not always intuitive. We recommend substantive researchers who work with missing data report estimates of FMIs in addition to the rate of missingness. We also encourage methodologists to examine FMIs when designing simulation studies with missing data, and to explore the behavior of efficiency loss under MAR using FMIs in more complex models.
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 | 0.452 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".