MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387033650 · doi:10.1177/09622802231198795

Logistic regression vs. predictive mean matching for imputing binary covariates

2023· article· en· W4387033650 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter C. Austin, Stef van Buuren

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMissing dataImputation (statistics)Logistic regressionStatisticsBinary dataParametric statisticsCovariateMathematicsRegression analysisMultivariate statisticsMatching (statistics)Computer scienceBinary number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 ( N = 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 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)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.159
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.159
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.343
GPT teacher head0.629
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations54
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical ResearchSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207