ArticleProceedings of machine learning research2025
Benchmarking Missing Data Imputation Methods for Time Series Using Real-World Test Cases.
Article in Proceedings of machine learning research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking imputation methods on real-world clinical time series with simulated spatio-temporal missingness.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Quantifying the Contributions of Food, Glucose, Sleep, and Microbiome Data to Personalized Glycemic Response Prediction.Current developments in nutrition · 2026Article
- Deep-learning time-series anomaly detection of acute kidney injury from creatinine-eGFR trajectories in the ICU.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Article
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
Abstract
Missing data is pervasive in healthcare. Many imputation methods exist to fill in missing values, yet most were evaluated using randomly deleted values rather than the actual mechanisms they were designed to address. We aimed to determine real-world accuracy for missing data imputation with three missing data mechanisms (missing completely at random, MCAR; missing at random, MAR; and not missing at random, NMAR) for state of the art and commonly used imputation methods. Using two time series data targets (continuous glucose monitoring, Loop dataset; heart rate, All of Us dataset) we simulated missingness by masking values for each mechanism, at a range of missingness percentages (5-30%) and tested 12 imputation methods. We evaluated accuracy with multiple metrics including root mean square error (RMSE) and bias. We found that overall, accuracy was significantly better on MCAR than on MAR and NMAR, despite many methods being developed for those mechanisms. Linear interpolation had the lowest RMSE with all mechanisms and for all demographic groups, with low bias. This study shows that current evaluation practices do not provide an accurate picture of real world performance with realistic patterns of missingness. Future research is needed to develop evaluation practices that better capture real-world accuracy, and methods that better address real-world mechanisms.
Identifiers
40896298PMC12392262What 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.