Imputation for Lipidomics and Metabolomics (ImpLiMet): Online application for optimization and method selection for missing data imputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Motivation Missing values are often unavoidable in modern high-throughput measurements due to various experimental or analytical reasons. Imputation, the process of replacing missing values in a dataset with estimated values, plays an important role in multivariate and machine learning analyses. Three missingness patterns have been conceptualized: missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR), and missing not at random (MNAR). Each describes unique dependencies between the missing and observed data. As a result, the optimal imputation method for each dataset depends on the type of data, the cause of the missing data, and the nature of relationships between the missing and observed data. The challenge is to identify the optimal imputation solution for a given dataset. Results ImpLiMet: is a user-friendly UI-platform that enables users to impute missing data using eight different methods. For the user’s dataset, ImpLiMet can suggest the optimal imputation solution through a grid search-based investigation of the error rate for imputation across three missingness data simulations. The effect of imputation can be visually assessed by histogram, kurtosis and skewness analyses, as well as principal component analysis (PCA) comparing the impact of the chosen imputation method on the distribution and overall behaviour of the data. Availability and implementation ImpLiMet is freely available at https://complimet.ca/shiny/implimet/ with software accessible at https://github.com/complimet/ImpLiMet Contact steffanyann.bennett@uottawa.ca and miroslava.cuperlovic-culf@nrc-cnrc.gca . Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics Advances online.
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.035 |
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".