ArticleStat
Bias correction for nonignorable missing counts of areal HIV new diagnosis.
Article in Stat. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Public health data, such as HIV new diagnoses, are often left-censored due to confidentiality issues. Standard analysis approaches that assume censored values as missing at random often lead to biased estimates and inferior predictions. Motivated by the Philadelphia areal counts of HIV new diagnosis for which all values less than or equal to 5 are suppressed, we propose two methods to reduce the adverse influence of missingness on predictions and imputation of areal HIV new diagnoses. One is the likelihood-based method that integrates the missing mechanism into the likelihood function, and the other is a nonparametric algorithm for matrix factorization imputation. Numerical studies and the Philadelphia data analysis demonstrate that the two proposed methods can significantly improve prediction and imputation based on left-censored HIV data. We also compare the two methods on their robustness to model misspecification and find that both methods appear to be robust for prediction, while their performance for imputation depends on model specification.
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.