How Deep is Your Guess? A Fresh Perspective on Deep Learning for Medical Time-Series Imputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a comprehensive analysis of deep learning approaches for Electronic Health Record (EHR) time-series imputation, examining how the interplay between architectural and framework design decisions gives rise to higher-level properties of a given deep imputer model and distinct biases towards complex data characteristics. Our investigation reveals the varying capabilities of deep imputers in capturing complex spatio-temporal dependencies within EHRs, and that the effectiveness of the model depends on how its combined biases align with the characteristics of the medical time series. Our experimental evaluation challenges common assumptions about model complexity, demonstrating that larger models do not necessarily improve performance. Rather, carefully designed architectures can better capture the complex patterns inherent in clinical data. The study highlights the need for imputation approaches that prioritise clinically meaningful data reconstruction over statistical accuracy. Our experiments further reveal up to 20% in variations of imputation performance based on preprocessing and implementation choices, emphasising the need for standardised benchmarking methodologies. Finally, we identify critical gaps between current deep imputation methods and medical requirements, highlighting the importance of integrating clinical insights to achieve more reliable imputation approaches for healthcare applications.
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 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".