Studying missingness in spinal cord injury data: challenges and impact of data imputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In the last decades, medical research fields studying rare conditions such as spinal cord injury (SCI) have made extensive efforts to collect large-scale data. However, most analysis methods rely on complete data. This is particularly troublesome when studying clinical data as they are prone to missingness. Often, researchers mitigate this problem by removing patients with missing data from the analyses. Less commonly, imputation methods to infer likely values are applied. Objective Our objective was to study how handling missing data influences the results reported, taking the example of SCI registries. We aimed to raise awareness on the effects of missing data and provide guidelines to be applied for future research projects, in SCI research and beyond. Methods Using the Sygen clinical trial data (n = 797), we analyzed the impact of the type of variable in which data is missing, the pattern according to which data is missing, and the imputation strategy (e.g. mean imputation, last observation carried forward, multiple imputation). Results Our simulations show that mean imputation may lead to results strongly deviating from the underlying expected results. For repeated measures missing at late stages (> = 6 months after injury in this simulation study), carrying the last observation forward seems the preferable option for the imputation. This simulation study could show that a one-size-fit-all imputation strategy falls short in SCI data sets. Conclusions Data-tailored imputation strategies are required (e.g., characterisation of the missingness pattern, last observation carried forward for repeated measures evolving to a plateau over time). Therefore, systematically reporting the extent, kind and decisions made regarding missing data will be essential to improve the interpretation, transparency, and reproducibility of the research presented.
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 | 0.253 | 0.575 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".