Using item response theory as a methodology to impute categorical missing values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most datasets suffer from partial or complete missing values, which has downstream limitations on the available models on which to test the data and on any statistical inferences that can be made from the data. Several imputation techniques have been designed to replace missing data with stand in values. The various approaches have implications for calculating clinical scores, model building and model testing. The work showcased here supports using an Item Response Theory (IRT) based approach for categorical imputation, comparing it against several methodologies currently used in the machine learning field including k-nearest neighbors (kNN), multiple imputed chained equations (MICE) and Amazon Web Services (AWS) deep learning method, DataWig. Analyses comparing these techniques were performed on three different datasets that represented ordinal, nominal and binary categories. The data were modified so that they also varied on both the proportion of data missing and the systematization of the missing data. Two different assessments of performance were conducted: accuracy in reproducing the missing values, and predictive performance using the imputed data. Results demonstrated that the proposed method, Item Response Theory for categorical imputation, fared quite well compared to currently used multiple imputation methods, outperforming several of them in many conditions. Given the theoretical basis for the approach, and the unique generation of probabilistic terms for determining category belonging for missing cells, IRT for categorical imputation offers a viable alternative to current approaches.
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 | 0.159 | 0.329 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".