Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35971088›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Evaluation of data imputation strategies in complex, deeply-phenotyped data sets: the case of the EU-AIMS Longitudinal European Autism Project.

A Llera, M Brammer, B Oakley, J Tillmann, M Zabihi, J S Amelink, T Mei, T Charman, C Ecker, F Dell'Acqua and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Structured missingness in biomedical research.Communications AI & computing · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Autism Is Associated With Interindividual Variations of Gray and White Matter Morphology.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

A LleraDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. a.llera@donders.ru.nl.
M BrammerInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, Sackler Institute for Translational Neurodevelopment, King's College London, London, UK.
B OakleyDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
J TillmannRoche Pharma Research and Early Development, Neuroscience and Rare Diseases, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland.
M ZabihiDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J S AmelinkDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
T MeiDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
T CharmanDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
C EckerInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, Sackler Institute for Translational Neurodevelopment, King's College London, London, UK.
F Dell'AcquaInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, Sackler Institute for Translational Neurodevelopment, King's College London, London, UK.
T BanaschewskiChild and Adolescent Psychiatry, Central Institute of Mental Health, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
C MoessnangDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Frankfurt Am Main, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
S Baron-CohenAutism Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
R HoltAutism Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
S DurstonDepartment of Psychiatry, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
D MurphyInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, Sackler Institute for Translational Neurodevelopment, King's College London, London, UK.
E LothInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, Sackler Institute for Translational Neurodevelopment, King's College London, London, UK.
J K BuitelaarDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
D L Floris *Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
C F Beckmann *Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An increasing number of large-scale multi-modal research initiatives has been conducted in the typically developing population, e.g. Dev. Cogn. Neur. 32:43-54, 2018; PLoS Med. 12(3):e1001779, 2015; Elam and Van Essen, Enc. Comp. Neur., 2013, as well as in psychiatric cohorts, e.g. Trans. Psych. 10(1):100, 2020; Mol. Psych. 19:659-667, 2014; Mol. Aut. 8:24, 2017; Eur. Child and Adol. Psych. 24(3):265-281, 2015. Missing data is a common problem in such datasets due to the difficulty of assessing multiple measures on a large number of participants. The consequences of missing data accumulate when researchers aim to integrate relationships across multiple measures. Here we aim to evaluate different imputation strategies to fill in missing values in clinical data from a large (total N = 764) and deeply phenotyped (i.e. range of clinical and cognitive instruments administered) sample of N = 453 autistic individuals and N = 311 control individuals recruited as part of the EU-AIMS Longitudinal European Autism Project (LEAP) consortium. In particular, we consider a total of 160 clinical measures divided in 15 overlapping subsets of participants. We use two simple but common univariate strategies-mean and median imputation-as well as a Round Robin regression approach involving four independent multivariate regression models including Bayesian Ridge regression, as well as several non-linear models: Decision Trees (Extra Trees., and Nearest Neighbours regression. We evaluate the models using the traditional mean square error towards removed available data, and also consider the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the observed and the imputed distributions. We show that all of the multivariate approaches tested provide a substantial improvement compared to typical univariate approaches. Further, our analyses reveal that across all 15 data-subsets tested, an Extra Trees regression approach provided the best global results. This not only allows the selection of a unique model to impute missing data for the LEAP project and delivers a fixed set of imputed clinical data to be used by researchers working with the LEAP dataset in the future, but provides more general guidelines for data imputation in large scale epidemiological studies.

Indexed as

Autistic DisorderBayes TheoremChildData CollectionHumansClinical dataImputationMachine learningMultivariate

Identifiers

PMID35971088
PMCPMC9380301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.