MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414343060 · doi:10.1101/2025.09.10.25335531

Comparing Missing Data Imputation Methods for Patient-Reported Outcomes in Esophageal Cancer Research

2025· preprint· en· W4414343060 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yong Jin Kweon, Emad A. Mohammed, Mehrnoush Dehghani, Trafford Crump

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityWilfrid Laurier UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissing dataImputation (statistics)Esophageal cancerPrincipal component analysisData qualityBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Missing data is common in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) research, particularly in oncology settings. We evaluated common methods for handling missing data in esophageal cancer quality of life measurements, namely: multiple imputation by chained equations, variational autoencoder, denoising autoencoder, Bayesian principal component analysis, a deep autoen-coder method with patient-specific embeddings and temporal pattern modeling, SoftImpute, and K-nearest neighbors. Using data from McGill University’s Esophageal and Gastric Data- and Bio-Bank, we compared these imputation methods for 44 variables of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal patient-reported outcome measure on execution time, distribution preservation, correlation maintenance, imputation accuracy, and clinical classification performance. Our comprehensive validation framework provides evidence-based recommendations for selecting appropriate imputation methods for esophageal cancer PRO research, which may improve the validity and reliability of research findings in this domain.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelingmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.149
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.312
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1490.312
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.278
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designSimulation or modeling · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods · Empirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→