ArticleCognitive neurodynamics2026
Machine learning for missing data imputation in Alzheimer's research: predicting medial temporal lobe dynamic flexibility.
Article in Cognitive neurodynamics, 2026. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology begins years before symptoms appear, and dynamic flexibility of the medial temporal lobe (MTL) may serve as an early functional biomarker. Using data from 656 older adults in the Rutgers Aging and Brain Health Alliance study, we evaluated whether cognitive, genetic, biochemical, and demographic predictors could estimate MTL dynamic flexibility, despite substantial missingness (1,866 missing values; 25.86%). Only 42 participants (6.40%) had complete data; therefore, we compared case deletion with five imputation strategies (MICE, GAIN, MissForest, MIWAE, ReMasker) and eight regression models, assessing prediction accuracy using repeated 5-fold cross-validation. Complete-case analysis yielded limited performance (average [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]). After imputation, all methods improved accuracy, with MissForest paired with Bagging Trees or Random Forest achieving the lowest prediction error ([Formula: see text]). The greatest improvement in concordance occurred when GAIN was combined with Bagging Trees/Random Forest ([Formula: see text]), representing a 57% gain over the best complete-case model. A Scheirer-Ray-Hare ANOVA confirmed significant differences across imputation strategies ([Formula: see text]). Runtime analyses showed GAIN and MissForest to be both accurate and computationally efficient, while deep generative imputers were slower. These findings demonstrate that robust imputation is essential for maximizing data utility and predictive reliability in high-missingness neuroimaging studies and highlight the potential of ensemble tree models combined with advanced imputation techniques for estimating MTL dynamic flexibility in aging populations.
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.