Facebook
TwitterA common problem in clinical trials is the missing data that occurs when patients do not complete the study and drop out without further measurements. Missing data cause the usual statistical analysis of complete or all available data to be subject to bias. There are no universally applicable methods for handling missing data. We recommend the following: (1) Report reasons for dropouts and proportions for each treatment group; (2) Conduct sensitivity analyses to encompass different scenarios of assumptions and discuss consistency or discrepancy among them; (3) Pay attention to minimize the chance of dropouts at the design stage and during trial monitoring; (4) Collect post-dropout data on the primary endpoints, if at all possible; and (5) Consider the dropout event itself an important endpoint in studies with many.
Facebook
TwitterThe purpose of this report is to guide analysts interested in fitting regression models using data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) by providing them with methods for handling missing item values in regression analyses (MIVRA). The report includes a theoretical review of existing MIVRA methods, a simulation study that evaluates several of the more promising methods using existing NSDUH datasets, and a final chapter where the results of both the theoretical review and the simulation study are synthesized into guidance for analysts via decision trees.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/39526/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/39526/terms
Health registries record data about patients with a specific health problem. These data may include age, weight, blood pressure, health problems, medical test results, and treatments received. But data in some patient records may be missing. For example, some patients may not report their weight or all of their health problems. Research studies can use data from health registries to learn how well treatments work. But missing data can lead to incorrect results. To address the problem, researchers often exclude patient records with missing data from their studies. But doing this can also lead to incorrect results. The fewer records that researchers use, the greater the chance for incorrect results. Missing data also lead to another problem: it is harder for researchers to find patient traits that could affect diagnosis and treatment. For example, patients who are overweight may get heart disease. But if data are missing, it is hard for researchers to be sure that trait could affect diagnosis and treatment of heart disease. In this study, the research team developed new statistical methods to fill in missing data in large studies. The team also developed methods to use when data are missing to help find patient traits that could affect diagnosis and treatment. To access the methods, software, and R package, please visit the Long Research Group website.
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Example data sets and computer code for the book chapter titled "Missing Data in the Analysis of Multilevel and Dependent Data" submitted for publication in the second edition of "Dependent Data in Social Science Research" (Stemmler et al., 2015). This repository includes the computer code (".R") and the data sets from both example analyses (Examples 1 and 2). The data sets are available in two file formats (binary ".rda" for use in R; plain-text ".dat").
The data sets contain simulated data from 23,376 (Example 1) and 23,072 (Example 2) individuals from 2,000 groups on four variables:
ID = group identifier (1-2000) x = numeric (Level 1) y = numeric (Level 1) w = binary (Level 2)
In all data sets, missing values are coded as "NA".
Facebook
TwitterReplication and simulation reproduction materials for the article "The MIDAS Touch: Accurate and Scalable Missing-Data Imputation with Deep Learning." Please see the README file for a summary of the contents and the Replication Guide for a more detailed description. Article abstract: Principled methods for analyzing missing values, based chiefly on multiple imputation, have become increasingly popular yet can struggle to handle the kinds of large and complex data that are also becoming common. We propose an accurate, fast, and scalable approach to multiple imputation, which we call MIDAS (Multiple Imputation with Denoising Autoencoders). MIDAS employs a class of unsupervised neural networks known as denoising autoencoders, which are designed to reduce dimensionality by corrupting and attempting to reconstruct a subset of data. We repurpose denoising autoencoders for multiple imputation by treating missing values as an additional portion of corrupted data and drawing imputations from a model trained to minimize the reconstruction error on the originally observed portion. Systematic tests on simulated as well as real social science data, together with an applied example involving a large-scale electoral survey, illustrate MIDAS's accuracy and efficiency across a range of settings. We provide open-source software for implementing MIDAS.
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
GENERAL INFORMATION
Title of Dataset: A dataset from a survey investigating disciplinary differences in data citation
Date of data collection: January to March 2022
Collection instrument: SurveyMonkey
Funding: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION
Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: These data are available under a CC BY 4.0 license
Links to publications that cite or use the data:
Gregory, K., Ninkov, A., Ripp, C., Peters, I., & Haustein, S. (2022). Surveying practices of data citation and reuse across disciplines. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Granada, Spain. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.6951437
Gregory, K., Ninkov, A., Ripp, C., Roblin, E., Peters, I., & Haustein, S. (2023). Tracing data:
A survey investigating disciplinary differences in data citation. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7555266
DATA & FILE OVERVIEW
File List
Additional related data collected that was not included in the current data package: Open ended questions asked to respondents
METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Description of methods used for collection/generation of data:
The development of the questionnaire (Gregory et al., 2022) was centered around the creation of two main branches of questions for the primary groups of interest in our study: researchers that reuse data (33 questions in total) and researchers that do not reuse data (16 questions in total). The population of interest for this survey consists of researchers from all disciplines and countries, sampled from the corresponding authors of papers indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) between 2016 and 2020.
Received 3,632 responses, 2,509 of which were completed, representing a completion rate of 68.6%. Incomplete responses were excluded from the dataset. The final total contains 2,492 complete responses and an uncorrected response rate of 1.57%. Controlling for invalid emails, bounced emails and opt-outs (n=5,201) produced a response rate of 1.62%, similar to surveys using comparable recruitment methods (Gregory et al., 2020).
Methods for processing the data:
Results were downloaded from SurveyMonkey in CSV format and were prepared for analysis using Excel and SPSS by recoding ordinal and multiple choice questions and by removing missing values.
Instrument- or software-specific information needed to interpret the data:
The dataset is provided in SPSS format, which requires IBM SPSS Statistics. The dataset is also available in a coded format in CSV. The Codebook is required to interpret to values.
DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: MDCDataCitationReuse2021surveydata
Number of variables: 94
Number of cases/rows: 2,492
Missing data codes: 999 Not asked
Refer to MDCDatacitationReuse2021Codebook.pdf for detailed variable information.
Facebook
TwitterThe purpose of the project was to learn more about patterns of homicide in the United States by strengthening the ability to make imputations for Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data with missing values. Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) and local police data from Chicago, Illinois, St. Louis, Missouri, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Phoenix, Arizona, for 1990 to 1995 were merged to create a master file by linking on overlapping information on victim and incident characteristics. Through this process, 96 percent of the cases in the SHR were matched with cases in the police files. The data contain variables for three types of cases: complete in SHR, missing offender and incident information in SHR but known in police report, and missing offender and incident information in both. The merged file allows estimation of similarities and differences between the cases with known offender characteristics in the SHR and those in the other two categories. The accuracy of existing data imputation methods can be assessed by comparing imputed values in an "incomplete" dataset (the SHR), generated by the three imputation strategies discussed in the literature, with the actual values in a known "complete" dataset (combined SHR and police data). Variables from both the Supplemental Homicide Reports and the additional police report offense data include incident date, victim characteristics, offender characteristics, incident details, geographic information, as well as variables regarding the matching procedure.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/36379/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/36379/terms
This study was an evaluation of multiple imputation strategies to address missing data using the New Approach to Evaluating Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) Data Imputation, 1990-1995 (ICPSR 20060) dataset.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
This synthetic dataset contains 4,362 rows and five columns, including both numerical and categorical data. It is designed for data cleaning, imputation, and analysis tasks, featuring structured missing values at varying percentages (63%, 4%, 47%, 31%, and 9%).
The dataset includes:
- Category (Categorical): Product category (A, B, C, D)
- Price (Numerical): Randomized product prices
- Rating (Numerical): Ratings between 1 to 5
- Stock (Categorical): Availability status (In Stock, Out of Stock)
- Discount (Numerical): Discount percentage
This dataset is ideal for practicing missing data handling, exploratory data analysis (EDA), and machine learning preprocessing.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/39528/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/39528/terms
Researchers can use data from health registries or electronic health records to compare two or more treatments. Registries store data about patients with a specific health problem. These data include how well those patients respond to treatments and information about patient traits, such as age, weight, or blood pressure. But sometimes data about patient traits are missing. Missing data about patient traits can lead to incorrect study results, especially when traits change over time. For example, weight can change over time, and the patient may not report their weight at some points along the way. Researchers use statistical methods to fill in these missing data. In this study, the research team compared a new statistical method to fill in missing data with traditional methods. Traditional methods remove patients with missing data or fill in each missing number with a single estimate. The new method creates multiple possible estimates to fill in each missing number. To access the methods, software, and R package, please visit the SimulateCER GitHub and SimTimeVar CRAN website.
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
In missing data analysis, the reporting of missing rates is insufficient for the readers to determine the impact of missing data on the efficiency of parameter estimates. A more diagnostic measure, the fraction of missing information (FMI), shows how the standard errors of parameter estimates increase from the information loss due to ignorable missing data. FMI is well-known in the multiple imputation literature (Rubin, 1987), but it has only been more recently developed for full information maximum likelihood (Savalei and Rhemtulla, 2012). Sample FMI estimates using this approach have since then been made accessible as part of the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012) in the R statistical programming language. However, the properties of FMI estimates at finite sample sizes have not been the subject of comprehensive investigation. In this paper, we present a simulation study on the properties of three sample FMI estimates from FIML in two common models in psychology, regression and two-factor analysis. We summarize the performance of these FMI estimates and make recommendations on their application.
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Additional file 2.
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Percentage (%) and number (n) of missing values in the outcome (maximum grip strength) among participants that were interviewed, by age group and sex using all available data.
Facebook
TwitterIn the May 2020 CMS Interoperability and Patient Access final rule, CMS finalized the policy to publicly report the names and NPIs of those providers who do not have digital contact information included in the NPPES system (85 FR 25584). This data includes the NPI and provider name of providers and clinicians without digital contact information in NPPES.
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Supplementary material 1.
Facebook
TwitterLatest database - 1/5/2017
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Description:
Welcome to the Zenodo repository for Publication Benchmarking imputation methods for categorical biological data, a comprehensive collection of datasets and scripts utilized in our research endeavors. This repository serves as a vital resource for researchers interested in exploring the empirical and simulated analyses conducted in our study.
Contents:
empirical_analysis:
simulation_analysis:
TDIP_package:
Purpose:
This repository aims to provide transparency and reproducibility to our research findings by making the datasets and scripts publicly accessible. Researchers interested in understanding our methodologies, replicating our analyses, or building upon our work can utilize this repository as a valuable reference.
Citation:
When using the datasets or scripts from this repository, we kindly request citing Publication Benchmarking imputation methods for categorical biological data and acknowledging the use of this Zenodo repository.
Thank you for your interest in our research, and we hope this repository serves as a valuable resource in your scholarly pursuits.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.htmlhttps://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html
The utility of fossils in evolutionary contexts is dependent on their accurate placement in phylogenetic frameworks, yet intrinsic and widespread missing data make this problematic. The complex taphonomic processes occurring during fossilization can make it difficult to distinguish absence from non-preservation, especially in the case of exceptionally preserved soft-tissue fossils: is a particular morphological character (e.g. appendage, tentacle or nerve) missing from a fossil because it was never there (phylogenetic absence), or just happened to not be preserved (taphonomic loss)? Missing data has not been tested in the context of interpretation of non-present anatomy nor in the context of directional shifts and biases in affinity. Here, complete taxa, both simulated and empirical, are subjected to data loss through the replacement of present entries (1s) with either missing (?s) or absent (0s) entries. Both cause taxa to drift down trees, from their original position, toward the root. Absolute thresholds at which downshift is significant are extremely low for introduced absences (2 entries replaced, 6 % of present characters). The opposite threshold in empirical fossil taxa is also found to be low; two absent entries replaced with presences causes fossil taxa to drift up trees. As such, only a few instances of non-preserved characters interpreted as absences will cause fossil organisms to be erroneously interpreted as more primitive than they were in life. This observed sensitivity to coding non-present morphology presents a problem for all evolutionary studies that attempt to use fossils to reconstruct rates of evolution or unlock sequences of morphological change. Stem-ward slippage, whereby fossilization processes cause organisms to appear artificially primitive, appears to be a ubiquitous and problematic phenomenon inherent to missing data, even when no decay biases exist. Absent characters therefore require explicit justification and taphonomic frameworks to support their interpretation.
Facebook
TwitterIn this Datasets i simply showed the handling of missing values in your data with help of python libraries such as NumPy and pandas. You can also see the use of Nan and Non values. Detecting, dropping and filling of null values.
Facebook
TwitterAdditional file 2: R code for all 1,024 models available at https://riskcalc.org/ExtendedPBCG/ .
Facebook
TwitterA common problem in clinical trials is the missing data that occurs when patients do not complete the study and drop out without further measurements. Missing data cause the usual statistical analysis of complete or all available data to be subject to bias. There are no universally applicable methods for handling missing data. We recommend the following: (1) Report reasons for dropouts and proportions for each treatment group; (2) Conduct sensitivity analyses to encompass different scenarios of assumptions and discuss consistency or discrepancy among them; (3) Pay attention to minimize the chance of dropouts at the design stage and during trial monitoring; (4) Collect post-dropout data on the primary endpoints, if at all possible; and (5) Consider the dropout event itself an important endpoint in studies with many.