Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36790608›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of biological anthropology2022

Missing data in bioarchaeology II: A test of ordinal and continuous data imputation.

Amanda Wissler, Kelly E Blevins, Jane E Buikstra

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of biological anthropology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. From Optimism to Opportunity: New Perspectives on the Osteological Paradox.American journal of biological anthropology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Imputation methods for mixed datasets in bioarchaeology.Archaeological and anthropological sciences · 2024
    Article
  6. Frailty and survival in the 1918 influenza pandemic.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Amanda WisslerDepartment of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7129-5342
Kelly E BlevinsArchaeology Department, Durham University, Durham, UK.
Jane E BuikstraCenter for Bioarchaeological Research, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.
Arizona State University · USDurham University · GBUniversity of South Carolina · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPrevious research has shown that while missing data are common in bioarchaeological studies, they are seldom handled using statistically rigorous methods. The primary objective of this article is to evaluate the ability of imputation to manage missing data and encourage the use of advanced statistical methods in bioarchaeology and paleopathology. An overview of missing data management in biological anthropology is provided, followed by a test of imputation and deletion methods for handling missing data. MATERIALS AND

methodsMissing data were simulated on complete datasets of ordinal (n = 287) and continuous (n = 369) bioarchaeological data. Missing values were imputed using five imputation methods (mean, predictive mean matching, random forest, expectation maximization, and stochastic regression) and the success of each at obtaining the parameters of the original dataset compared with pairwise and listwise deletion.

resultsIn all instances, listwise deletion was least successful at approximating the original parameters. Imputation of continuous data was more effective than ordinal data. Overall, no one method performed best and the amount of missing data proved a stronger predictor of imputation success. DISCUSSION: These findings support the use of imputation methods over deletion for handling missing bioarchaeological and paleopathology data, especially when the data are continuous. Whereas deletion methods reduce sample size, imputation maintains sample size, improving statistical power and preventing bias from being introduced into the dataset.

Indexed as

ArchaeologyResearch DesignBiasData ManagementSample Sizebioarchaeologyimputationmissing datapaleopathology

Identifiers

PMID36790608
PMCPMC9825894
OpenAlexW4295233508

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.