BMC medical research methodology · 2024
Comparison of the effects of imputation methods for missing data in predictive modelling of cohort study datasets.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li JiaHang, Guo ShuXia, Ma RuLin, He Jia, Zhang XiangHui, Rui DongSheng, Ding YuSong, Li Yu, Jian LeYao, Cheng Jing, Guo Heng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Missing data is frequently an inevitable issue in cohort studies and it can adversely affect the study's findings. We assess the effectiveness of eight frequently utilized statistical and machine learning (ML) imputation methods for dealing with missing data in predictive modelling of cohort study datasets. This evaluation is based on real data and predictive models for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.
METHODS: The data is from a real-world cohort study in Xinjiang, China. It includes personal information, physical examination data, questionnaires, and laboratory biochemical results from 10,164 subjects with a total of 37 variables. Simple imputation (Simple), regression imputation (Regression), expectation-maximization(EM), multiple imputation (MICE) , K nearest neighbor classification (KNN), clustering imputation (Cluster), random forest (RF), and decision tree (Cart) were the chosen imputation methods. Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE) are utilised to assess the performance of different methods for missing data imputation at a missing rate of 20%. The datasets processed with different missing data imputation methods were employed to construct a CVD risk prediction model utilizing the support vector machine (SVM). The predictive performance was then compared using the area under the curve (AUC).
RESULTS: The most effective imputation results were attained by KNN (MAE: 0.2032, RMSE: 0.7438, AUC: 0.730, CI: 0.719-0.741) and RF (MAE: 0.3944, RMSE: 1.4866, AUC: 0.777, CI: 0.769-0.785). The subsequent best performances were achieved by EM, Cart, and MICE, while Simple, Regression, and Cluster attained the worst performances. The CVD risk prediction model was constructed using the complete data (AUC:0.804, CI:0.796-0.812) in comparison with all other models with p<0.05.
CONCLUSION: KNN and RF exhibit superior performance and are more adept at imputing missing data in predictive modelling of cohort study datasets.
METHODS: The data is from a real-world cohort study in Xinjiang, China. It includes personal information, physical examination data, questionnaires, and laboratory biochemical results from 10,164 subjects with a total of 37 variables. Simple imputation (Simple), regression imputation (Regression), expectation-maximization(EM), multiple imputation (MICE) , K nearest neighbor classification (KNN), clustering imputation (Cluster), random forest (RF), and decision tree (Cart) were the chosen imputation methods. Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE) are utilised to assess the performance of different methods for missing data imputation at a missing rate of 20%. The datasets processed with different missing data imputation methods were employed to construct a CVD risk prediction model utilizing the support vector machine (SVM). The predictive performance was then compared using the area under the curve (AUC).
RESULTS: The most effective imputation results were attained by KNN (MAE: 0.2032, RMSE: 0.7438, AUC: 0.730, CI: 0.719-0.741) and RF (MAE: 0.3944, RMSE: 1.4866, AUC: 0.777, CI: 0.769-0.785). The subsequent best performances were achieved by EM, Cart, and MICE, while Simple, Regression, and Cluster attained the worst performances. The CVD risk prediction model was constructed using the complete data (AUC:0.804, CI:0.796-0.812) in comparison with all other models with p<0.05.
CONCLUSION: KNN and RF exhibit superior performance and are more adept at imputing missing data in predictive modelling of cohort study datasets.