Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39450101›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied statistics2024

The impact of misclassifications and outliers on imputation methods.

M Templ, Markus Ulmer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied statistics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

M TemplInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication, School of Business, University of Applied Sciences and Art Northwestern Switzerland, Olten, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8638-5276
Markus UlmerInstitute of Data Analysis and Process Design, School of Engineering, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7783-8475

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many imputation methods have been developed over the years and tested mostly under ideal settings. Surprisingly, there is no detailed research on how imputation methods perform when the idealized assumptions about the distribution of data and/or model assumptions are partly not fulfilled. This research looks into the susceptibility of imputation techniques, particularly in relation to outliers, misclassifications, and incorrect model specifications. This is crucial knowledge about how well the methods convince in everyday life because, in reality, conditions are usually not ideal, and model assumptions may not hold. The data may not fit the defined models well. Outliers distort the estimates, and misclassifications reduce the quality of most imputation methods. Several different evaluation measures are discussed, from comparing imputed values with true values or comparing certain statistics, from the performance of classifiers to the variance of estimated parameters. Some well-known imputation methods are compared based on real data and simulations. It turns out that robust conditional imputation methods outperform other methods for real data and simulation settings.

Indexed as

62-08imputationmisclassificationsMissing valuesoutliersrobust methodssimulation

Identifiers

PMID39450101
PMCPMC11500630

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.