ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2026
Tutorial: Using Random Forest Analysis to Identify Auxiliary Variables of Missing Data.
Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Missing data is a pervasive problem in research; prevention science is particularly vulnerable due to the study designs used and types of data collected. Recommended approaches to address missing data include full information maximum likelihood estimation and multiple imputation, both of which rely on identification of auxiliary variables related to missingness. The methodological literature recommends including as many potential auxiliary variables as possible, but in practice, that is often infeasible and a researcher must select a more limited number. Prior studies have shown that traditional methods for identifying auxiliary variables do not perform well when missingness follows a nonlinear functional form, but machine learning methods such as random forest analysis (RFA) perform well at successfully identifying correlates of missingness across a variety of missing at random patterns. RFA models can also provide measures of variable importance, allowing researchers to prioritize inclusion of the most relevant variables. Methods like RFA are less familiar to prevention researchers, which serves as an impediment for researchers to use RFA to identify auxiliary variables. This paper provides a tutorial to use RFA to identify correlates of missingness using a real data sample of
Indexed as
Identifiers
42399576What 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.