ArticleDigital health
Comparative study of imputation strategies to improve the sarcopenia prediction task.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Sarcopenia, a condition characterized by the progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength, poses significant challenges in research due to missing data. Incomplete datasets undermine the accuracy and reliability of studies, necessitating effective imputation techniques. This study conducts a comparative analysis of three advanced methods-multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE), support vector regression, and K-nearest neighbors (KNN)-to address data completeness issues in sarcopenia research. Methods: Following imputation, we utilized machine learning models, including logistic regression, gradient boosting, support vector machine, and random forest, to classify sarcopenia. The methodology encompassed rigorous data preprocessing, normalization, and the synthetic minority oversampling technique to address class imbalance and ensure unbiased model performance. Results: The results revealed substantial variations in model accuracy based on the imputation method employed. The gradient boosting model consistently exhibited superior performance across all imputation strategies, demonstrating its robustness with imputed datasets. Additionally, KNN and MICE emerged as effective imputation techniques, preserving the original data distribution and enabling more accurate classification outcomes. Conclusion: This study underscores the pivotal role of imputation methods in maintaining data integrity and enhancing predictive accuracy in sarcopenia research. The gradient boosting model's reliability across all strategies highlights its potential as a robust classifier, while the suitability of KNN and MICE for preserving data distribution supports their application in similar research contexts. These findings contribute to more reliable and valid insights in sarcopenia studies, ultimately supporting improved clinical outcomes.
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.