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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.371
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.371
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.343
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