ArticlePloS one2026
A layered stacking ensemble approach for missing data imputation.
Article in PloS one, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Missing data is a challenging issue in data analysis. Researchers often address the issue by simply removing incomplete cases from the analysis. However, this approach reduces the sample size and can undermine the accuracy of statistical estimates. Alternatively, imputation techniques can be used to replace missing values with plausible estimates, resulting in a more complete dataset and more reliable estimates. In this study, we propose a new imputation method, which we call Layered Stacking. The method is designed to improve the estimation of continuous missing values. To evaluate its effectiveness, comprehensive simulation studies were carried out with four distinct data generating processes using datasets generated under the missing at random mechanism, with sample sizes of 500, 1,000, 5,000 and 10,000, and missingness rates of 10, 20, 30 and 40%. The proposed method is compared with five widely used imputation techniques: k-nearest neighbors, support vector regression, decision tree, random forest and extreme gradient boosting. Evaluation metrics include mean squared imputation error (MSIE) and mean absolute percentage imputation error (MAPIE) along with standard deviation (SD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) across replications. Two real-world datasets have also been considered to assess the performance of the method. The proposed method generally achieved lower MSIE than the benchmark models, particularly for larger datasets.
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.