ArticleScientific reports2023
A simulation study on missing data imputation for dichotomous variables using statistical and machine learning methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of risk prediction models for arteriovenous fistula dysfunction in maintenance hemodialysis patients.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Long-term stability of the triglyceride-glucose index in cancer patient Cohort.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Construction of a classification model for dementia among Brazilian adults aged 50 and over.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Iterative rolling difference-Z-score and machine learning imputation for wind turbine foundation monitoring.PloS one · 2025Article
- An interactive atlas of genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic biomarkers promotes the potential of proteins to predict complex diseases.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- An interactive atlas of genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic biomarkers promotes the potential of proteins to predict complex diseases.Research square · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The problem of missing data, particularly for dichotomous variables, is a common issue in medical research. However, few studies have focused on the imputation methods of dichotomous data and their performance, as well as the applicability of these imputation methods and the factors that may affect their performance. In the arrangement of application scenarios, different missing mechanisms, sample sizes, missing rates, the correlation between variables, value distributions, and the number of missing variables were considered. We used data simulation techniques to establish a variety of different compound scenarios for missing dichotomous variables and conducted real-data validation on two real-world medical datasets. We comprehensively compared the performance of eight imputation methods (mode, logistic regression (LogReg), multiple imputation (MI), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), k-nearest neighbor (KNN), support vector machine (SVM), and artificial neural network (ANN)) in each scenario. Accuracy and mean absolute error (MAE) were applied to evaluating their performance. The results showed that missing mechanisms, value distributions and the correlation between variables were the main factors affecting the performance of imputation methods. Machine learning-based methods, especially SVM, ANN, and DT, achieved relatively high accuracy with stable performance and were of potential applicability. Researchers should explore the correlation between variables and their distribution pattern in advance and prioritize machine learning-based methods for practical applications when encountering dichotomous missing data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.