Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37803172›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2023

The impact of imputation quality on machine learning classifiers for datasets with missing values.

Tolou Shadbahr, Michael Roberts, Jan Stanczuk, Julian Gilbey, Philip Teare, Sören Dittmer, Matthew Thorpe, Ramon Viñas Torné, Evis Sala, Pietro Lió and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Solving the 'Goldilocks problem' in dementia clinical trials with multimodal AI.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

19 authors.

Tolou Shadbahr *Research Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5715-5933
Michael Roberts *Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. michael.roberts@maths.cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3484-5031
Jan Stanczuk *Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Julian Gilbey *Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5987-5261
Philip Teare *Data Science & Artificial Intelligence, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
Sören DittmerDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Matthew ThorpeDepartment of Mathematics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Ramon Viñas TornéDepartment of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Evis SalaDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5518-9360
Pietro LióDepartment of Mathematics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0540-5053
Mishal PatelData Science & Artificial Intelligence, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
Jacobus PrellerAddenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5706-816X
AIX-COVNET Collaboration
James H F RuddDepartment of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2243-3117
Tuomas MirttiResearch Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0455-9891
Antti Sakari RannikkoResearch Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
John A D AstonDepartment of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jing TangResearch Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7480-7710
Carola-Bibiane SchönliebDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClassifying samples in incomplete datasets is a common aim for machine learning practitioners, but is non-trivial. Missing data is found in most real-world datasets and these missing values are typically imputed using established methods, followed by classification of the now complete samples. The focus of the machine learning researcher is to optimise the classifier's performance.

methodsWe utilise three simulated and three real-world clinical datasets with different feature types and missingness patterns. Initially, we evaluate how the downstream classifier performance depends on the choice of classifier and imputation methods. We employ ANOVA to quantitatively evaluate how the choice of missingness rate, imputation method, and classifier method influences the performance. Additionally, we compare commonly used methods for assessing imputation quality and introduce a class of discrepancy scores based on the sliced Wasserstein distance. We also assess the stability of the imputations and the interpretability of model built on the imputed data.

resultsThe performance of the classifier is most affected by the percentage of missingness in the test data, with a considerable performance decline observed as the test missingness rate increases. We also show that the commonly used measures for assessing imputation quality tend to lead to imputed data which poorly matches the underlying data distribution, whereas our new class of discrepancy scores performs much better on this measure. Furthermore, we show that the interpretability of classifier models trained using poorly imputed data is compromised.

conclusionsIt is imperative to consider the quality of the imputation when performing downstream classification as the effects on the classifier can be considerable.

Identifiers

PMID37803172
PMCPMC10558448

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.