Missing data is a common problem in many research fields and is a challenge that always needs careful considerations. One approach is to impute the missing values, i.e., replace missing values with estimates. When imputation is applied, it is typically applied to all records with missing values indiscriminately. We note that the effects of imputation can be strongly dependent on what is missing. To help make decisions about which records should be imputed, we propose to use a machine learning approach to estimate the imputation error for each case with missing data. The method is thought to be a practical approach to help users using imputation after the informed choice to impute the missing data has been made. To do this all patterns of missing values are simulated in all complete cases, enabling calculation of the “true error” in each of these new cases. The error is then estimated for each case with missing values by weighing the “true errors” by similarity. The method can also be used to test the performance of different imputation methods. A universal numerical threshold of acceptable error cannot be set since this will differ according to the data, research question, and analysis method. The effect of threshold can be estimated using the complete cases. The user can set an a priori relevant threshold for what is acceptable or use cross validation with the final analysis to choose the threshold. The choice can be presented along with argumentation for the choice rather than holding to conventions that might not be warranted in the specific dataset.

1. NCCTG Lung cancer datasetSurvival in patients with advanced lung cancer from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. Performance scores rate how well the patient can perform usual daily activities.2.CNV measurements of CNV of GBM This dataset records the information about copy number variation of Glioblastoma (GBM).Abstract:In biology and medicine, conservative patient and data collection malpractice can lead to missing or incorrect values in patient registries, which can affect both diagnosis and prognosis. Insufficient or biased patient information significantly impedes the sensitivity and accuracy of predicting cancer survival. In bioinformatics, making a best guess of the missing values and identifying the incorrect values are collectively called “imputation”. Existing imputation methods work by establishing a model based on the data mechanism of the missing values. Existing imputation methods work well under two assumptions: 1) the data is missing completely at random, and 2) the percentage of missing values is not high. These are not cases found in biomedical datasets, such as the Cancer Genome Atlas Glioblastoma Copy-Number Variant dataset (TCGA: 108 columns), or the North Central Cancer Treatment Group Lung Cancer (NCCTG) dataset (NCCTG: 9 columns). We tested six existing imputation methods, but only two of them worked with these datasets: The Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) and K-nearest Algorithm (KNN). Predictive Mean Matching (PMM) and Classification and Regression Trees (CART) worked only with the NCCTG lung cancer dataset with fewer columns, except when the dataset contains 45% missing data. The quality of the imputed values using existing methods is bad because they do not meet the two assumptions.In our study, we propose a Restricted Boltzmann Machine (RBM)-based imputation method to cope with low randomness and the high percentage of the missing values. RBM is an undirected, probabilistic and parameterized two-layer neural network model, which is often used for extracting abstract information from data, especially for high-dimensional data with unknown or non-standard distributions. In our benchmarks, we applied our method to two cancer datasets: 1) NCCTG, and 2) TCGA. The running time, root mean squared error (RMSE) of the different methods were gauged. The benchmarks for the NCCTG dataset show that our method performs better than other methods when there is 5% missing data in the dataset, with 4.64 RMSE lower than the best KNN. For the TCGA dataset, our method achieved 0.78 RMSE lower than the best KNN.In addition to imputation, RBM can achieve simultaneous predictions. We compared the RBM model with four traditional prediction methods. The running time and area under the curve (AUC) were measured to evaluate the performance. Our RBM-based approach outperformed traditional methods. Specifically, the AUC was up to 19.8% higher than the multivariate logistic regression model in the NCCTG lung cancer dataset, and the AUC was higher than the Cox proportional hazard regression model, with 28.1% in the TCGA dataset.Apart from imputation and prediction, RBM models can detect outliers in one pass by allowing the reconstruction of all the inputs in the visible layer with in a single backward pass. Our results show that RBM models have achieved higher precision and recall on detecting outliers than other methods.

Replication 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.

Cervical cancer is a leading cause of women’s mortality, emphasizing the need for early diagnosis and effective treatment. In line with the imperative of early intervention, the automated identification of cervical cancer has emerged as a promising avenue, leveraging machine learning techniques to enhance both the speed and accuracy of diagnosis. However, an inherent challenge in the development of these automated systems is the presence of missing values in the datasets commonly used for cervical cancer detection. Missing data can significantly impact the performance of machine learning models, potentially leading to inaccurate or unreliable results. This study addresses a critical challenge in automated cervical cancer identification—handling missing data in datasets. The study present a novel approach that combines three machine learning models into a stacked ensemble voting classifier, complemented by the use of a KNN Imputer to manage missing values. The proposed model achieves remarkable results with an accuracy of 0.9941, precision of 0.98, recall of 0.96, and an F1 score of 0.97. This study examines three distinct scenarios: one involving the deletion of missing values, another utilizing KNN imputation, and a third employing PCA for imputing missing values. This research has significant implications for the medical field, offering medical experts a powerful tool for more accurate cervical cancer therapy and enhancing the overall effectiveness of testing procedures. By addressing missing data challenges and achieving high accuracy, this work represents a valuable contribution to cervical cancer detection, ultimately aiming to reduce the impact of this disease on women’s health and healthcare systems.

Missing data is an inevitable aspect of every empirical research. Researchers developed several techniques to handle missing data to avoid information loss and biases. Over the past 50 years, these methods have become more and more efficient and also more complex. Building on previous review studies, this paper aims to analyze what kind of missing data handling methods are used among various scientific disciplines. For the analysis, we used nearly 50.000 scientific articles that were published between 1999 and 2016. JSTOR provided the data in text format. Furthermore, we utilized a text-mining approach to extract the necessary information from our corpus. Our results show that the usage of advanced missing data handling methods such as Multiple Imputation or Full Information Maximum Likelihood estimation is steadily growing in the examination period. Additionally, simpler methods, like listwise and pairwise deletion, are still in widespread use.

An adequate imputation of missing data would significantly preserve the statistical power and avoid erroneous conclusions. In the era of big data, machine learning is a great tool to infer the missing values. The root means square error (RMSE) and the proportion of falsely classified entries (PFC) are two standard statistics to evaluate imputation accuracy. However, the Cox proportional hazards model using various types requires deliberate study, and the validity under different missing mechanisms is unknown. In this research, we propose supervised and unsupervised imputations and examine four machine learning-based imputation strategies. We conducted a simulation study under various scenarios with several parameters, such as sample size, missing rate, and different missing mechanisms. The results revealed the type-I errors according to different imputation techniques in the survival data. The simulation results show that the non-parametric “missForest” based on the unsupervised imputation is the only robust method without inflated type-I errors under all missing mechanisms. In contrast, other methods are not valid to test when the missing pattern is informative. Statistical analysis, which is improperly conducted, with missing data may lead to erroneous conclusions. This research provides a clear guideline for a valid survival analysis using the Cox proportional hazard model with machine learning-based imputations.

The monitoring of surface-water quality followed by water-quality modeling and analysis is essential for generating effective strategies in water resource management. However, water-quality studies are limited by the lack of complete and reliable data sets on surface-water-quality variables. These deficiencies are particularly noticeable in developing countries. This work focuses on surface-water-quality data from Santa Lucía Chico river (Uruguay), a mixed lotic and lentic river system. Data collected at six monitoring stations are publicly available at https://www.dinama.gub.uy/oan/datos-abiertos/calidad-agua/. The high temporal and spatial variability that characterizes water-quality variables and the high rate of missing values (between 50% and 70%) raises significant challenges. To deal with missing values, we applied several statistical and machine-learning imputation methods. The competing algorithms implemented belonged to both univariate and multivariate imputation methods (inverse distance weighting (IDW), Random Forest Regressor (RFR), Ridge (R), Bayesian Ridge (BR), AdaBoost (AB), Huber Regressor (HR), Support Vector Regressor (SVR), and K-nearest neighbors Regressor (KNNR)). IDW outperformed the others, achieving a very good performance (NSE greater than 0.8) in most cases. In this dataset, we include the original and imputed values for the following variables: Water temperature (Tw) Dissolved oxygen (DO) Electrical conductivity (EC) pH Turbidity (Turb) Nitrite (NO2-) Nitrate (NO3-) Total Nitrogen (TN) Each variable is identified as [STATION] VARIABLE FULL NAME (VARIABLE SHORT NAME) [UNIT METRIC]. More details about the study area, the original datasets, and the methodology adopted can be found in our paper https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6318. If you use this dataset in your work, please cite our paper: Rodríguez, R.; Pastorini, M.; Etcheverry, L.; Chreties, C.; Fossati, M.; Castro, A.; Gorgoglione, A. Water-Quality Data Imputation with a High Percentage of Missing Values: A Machine Learning Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6318. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116318 {"references": ["Rodr\u00edguez, R.; Pastorini, M.; Etcheverry, L.; Chreties, C.; Fossati, M.; Castro, A.; Gorgoglione, A. Water-Quality Data Imputation with a High Percentage of Missing Values: A Machine Learning Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6318. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116318"]}

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:

1. empirical_analysis:

   • Trait Dataset of Elasmobranchs: A collection of trait data for elasmobranch species obtained from FishBase , stored as RDS file.
   • Phylogenetic Tree: A phylogenetic tree stored as a TRE file.
   • Imputations Replicates (Imputation): Replicated imputations of missing data in the trait dataset, stored as RData files.
   • Error Calculation (Results): Error calculation results derived from imputed datasets, stored as RData files.
   • Scripts: Collection of R scripts used for the implementation of empirical analysis.

2. simulation_analysis:

   • Input Files: Input files utilized for simulation analyses as CSV files
   • Data Distribution PDFs: PDF files displaying the distribution of simulated data and the missingness.
   • Output Files: Simulated trait datasets, trait datasets with missing data, and trait imputed datasets with imputation errors calculated as RData files.
   • Scripts: Collection of R scripts used for the simulation analysis.

3. TDIP_package:

   • Scripts of the TDIP Package: All scripts related to the Trait Data Imputation with Phylogeny (TDIP) R package used in the analyses.

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.

1. There is a growing need for scientific synthesis in ecology and evolution. In many cases, meta-analytic techniques can be used to complement such synthesis. However, missing data is a serious problem for any synthetic efforts and can compromise the integrity of meta-analyses in these and other disciplines. Currently, the prevalence of missing data in meta-analytic datasets in ecology and the efficacy of different remedies for this problem have not been adequately quantified. 2. We generated meta-analytic datasets based on literature reviews of experimental and observational data and found that missing data were prevalent in meta-analytic ecological datasets. We then tested the performance of complete case removal (a widely used method when data are missing) and multiple imputation (an alternative method for data recovery) and assessed model bias, precision, and multi-model rankings under a variety of simulated conditions using published meta-regression datasets. 3. We found that complete case removal led to biased and imprecise coefficient estimates and yielded poorly specified models. In contrast, multiple imputation provided unbiased parameter estimates with only a small loss in precision. The performance of multiple imputation, however, was dependent on the type of data missing. It performed best when missing values were weighting variables, but performance was mixed when missing values were predictor variables. Multiple imputation performed poorly when imputing raw data which was then used to calculate effect size and the weighting variable. 4. We conclude that complete case removal should not be used in meta-regression, and that multiple imputation has the potential to be an indispensable tool for meta-regression in ecology and evolution. However, we recommend that users assess the performance of multiple imputation by simulating missing data on a subset of their data before implementing it to recover actual missing data.

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".

On this page, you find the imputed tax loss carryforward (TLCF) values based on the algorithm presented in Max, Wielhouwer & Wiersma (2023). Estimating and imputing missing tax loss carryforward data to reduce measurement error. European Accounting Review 32(1), 55-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2021.1924812 . Note that the dataset contains only the imputations for the missing values on Compustat. If the Compustat TLCF is available, we have not included it in the dataset here. We download all observations from Compustat from the period 1982 up until the most recent year. Missing values on the input variables for the Shevlin (1990) taxable income measure are replaced by zero. We drop firms from the sample if years are missing in their time series. Note: We seek to update the dataset each year with the latest imputations, so pay attention to the 'Versions' tab of this dataset. Each update will be posted in a new version.

Missing values in proteomic data sets have real consequences on downstream data analysis and reproducibility. Although several imputation methods exist to handle missing values, no single imputation method is best suited for a diverse range of data sets, and no clear strategy exists for evaluating imputation methods for clinical DIA-MS data sets, especially at different levels of protein quantification. To navigate through the different imputation strategies available in the literature, we have established a strategy to assess imputation methods on clinical label-free DIA-MS data sets. We used three DIA-MS data sets with real missing values to evaluate eight imputation methods with multiple parameters at different levels of protein quantification: a dilution series data set, a small pilot data set, and a clinical proteomic data set comparing paired tumor and stroma tissue. We found that imputation methods based on local structures within the data, like local least-squares (LLS) and random forest (RF), worked well in our dilution series data set, whereas imputation methods based on global structures within the data, like BPCA, performed well in the other two data sets. We also found that imputation at the most basic protein quantification levelfragment levelimproved accuracy and the number of proteins quantified. With this analytical framework, we quickly and cost-effectively evaluated different imputation methods using two smaller complementary data sets to narrow down to the larger proteomic data set’s most accurate methods. This acquisition strategy allowed us to provide reproducible evidence of the accuracy of the imputation method, even in the absence of a ground truth. Overall, this study indicates that the most suitable imputation method relies on the overall structure of the data set and provides an example of an analytic framework that may assist in identifying the most appropriate imputation strategies for the differential analysis of proteins.

Fossil-based estimates of diversity and evolutionary dynamics mainly rely on the study of morphological variation. Unfortunately, organism remains are often altered by post-mortem taphonomic processes such as weathering or distortion. Such a loss of information often prevents quantitative multivariate description and statistically controlled comparisons of extinct species based on morphometric data. A common way to deal with missing data involves imputation methods that directly fill the missing cases with model estimates. Over the last several years, several empirically determined thresholds for the maximum acceptable proportion of missing values have been proposed in the literature, whereas other studies showed that this limit actually depends on several properties of the study dataset and of the selected imputation method, and is by no way generalizable. We evaluate the relative performances of seven multiple imputation techniques through a simulation-based analysis under three distinct patterns of missing data distribution. Overall, Fully Conditional Specification and Expectation-Maximization algorithms provide the best compromises between imputation accuracy and coverage probability. Multiple imputation (MI) techniques appear remarkably robust to the violation of basic assumptions such as the occurrence of taxonomically or anatomically biased patterns of missing data distribution, making differences in simulation results between the three patterns of missing data distribution much smaller than differences between the individual MI techniques. Based on these results, rather than proposing a new (set of) threshold value(s), we develop an approach combining the use of multiple imputations with procrustean superimposition of principal component analysis results, in order to directly visualize the effect of individual missing data imputation on an ordinated space. We provide an R function for users to implement the proposed procedure.

Example data sets 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 data sets used in both example analyses (Examples 1 and 2) 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".

We propose a framework for meta-analysis of qualitative causal inferences. We integrate qualitative counterfactual inquiry with an approach from the quantitative causal inference literature called extreme value bounds. Qualitative counterfactual analysis uses the observed outcome and auxiliary information to infer what would have happened had the treatment been set to a different level. Imputing missing potential outcomes is hard and when it fails, we can fill them in under best- and worst-case scenarios. We apply our approach to 63 cases that could have experienced transitional truth commissions upon democratization, 8 of which did. Prior to any analysis, the extreme value bounds around the average treatment effect on authoritarian resumption are 100 percentage points wide; imputation shrinks the width of these bounds to 51 points. We further demonstrate our method by aggregating specialists' beliefs about causal effects gathered through an expert survey, shrinking the width of the bounds to 44 points.

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.

Penalized regression methods are used in many biomedical applications for variable selection and simultaneous coefficient estimation. However, missing data complicates the implementation of these methods, particularly when missingness is handled using multiple imputation. Applying a variable selection algorithm on each imputed dataset will likely lead to different sets of selected predictors. This article considers a general class of penalized objective functions which, by construction, force selection of the same variables across imputed datasets. By pooling objective functions across imputations, optimization is then performed jointly over all imputed datasets rather than separately for each dataset. We consider two objective function formulations that exist in the literature, which we will refer to as “stacked” and “grouped” objective functions. Building on existing work, we (i) derive and implement efficient cyclic coordinate descent and majorization-minimization optimization algorithms for continuous and binary outcome data, (ii) incorporate adaptive shrinkage penalties, (iii) compare these methods through simulation, and (iv) develop an R package miselect. Simulations demonstrate that the “stacked” approaches are more computationally efficient and have better estimation and selection properties. We apply these methods to data from the University of Michigan ALS Patients Biorepository aiming to identify the association between environmental pollutants and ALS risk. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

Global health indicators such as infant and maternal mortality are important for informing priorities for health research, policy development, and resource allocation. However, due to inconsistent reporting within and across nations, construction of comparable indicators often requires extensive data imputation and complex modeling from limited observed data. We draw on Ahmed et al.’s 2012 paper – an analysis of maternal deaths averted by contraceptive use for 172 countries in 2008 – as an exemplary case of the challenge of building reliable models with scarce observations. The authors’ employ a counterfactual modeling approach using regression imputation on the independent variable which assumes no estimation uncertainty in the final model and does not address the potential for scattered missingness in the predictor variables. We replicate their results and test the sensitivity of their published estimates to the use of an alternative method for imputing missing data, multiple imputation. We also calculate alternative estimates of standard errors for the model estimates that more appropriately account for the uncertainty introduced through data imputation of multiple predictor variables. Based on our results, we discuss the risks associated with the missing data practices employed and evaluate the appropriateness of multiple imputation as an alternative for data imputation and uncertainty estimation for models of global health indicators.

Missing values in radionuclide diffusion datasets can undermine the predictive accuracy and robustness of machine learning models. A regression-based missing data imputation method using light gradient boosting machine algorithm was employed to impute over 60% of the missing data.

Background
The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is a unique source of information using international definitions of employment and unemployment and economic inactivity, together with a wide range of related topics such as occupation, training, hours of work and personal characteristics of household members aged 16 years and over. It is used to inform social, economic and employment policy. The LFS was first conducted biennially from 1973-1983. Between 1984 and 1991 the survey was carried out annually and consisted of a quarterly survey conducted throughout the year and a 'boost' survey in the spring quarter (data were then collected seasonally). From 1992 quarterly data were made available, with a quarterly sample size approximately equivalent to that of the previous annual data. The survey then became known as the Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS). From December 1994, data gathering for Northern Ireland moved to a full quarterly cycle to match the rest of the country, so the QLFS then covered the whole of the UK (though some additional annual Northern Ireland LFS datasets are also held at the UK Data Archive). Further information on the background to the QLFS may be found in the documentation.

Household datasets
Up to 2015, the LFS household datasets were produced twice a year (April-June and October-December) from the corresponding quarter's individual-level data. From January 2015 onwards, they are now produced each quarter alongside the main QLFS. The household datasets include all the usual variables found in the individual-level datasets, with the exception of those relating to income, and are intended to facilitate the analysis of the economic activity patterns of whole households. It is recommended that the existing individual-level LFS datasets continue to be used for any analysis at individual level, and that the LFS household datasets be used for analysis involving household or family-level data. From January 2011, a pseudonymised household identifier variable (HSERIALP) is also included in the main quarterly LFS dataset instead.

Change to coding of missing values for household series
From 1996-2013, all missing values in the household datasets were set to one '-10' category instead of the separate '-8' and '-9' categories. For that period, the ONS introduced a new imputation process for the LFS household datasets and it was necessary to code the missing values into one new combined category ('-10'), to avoid over-complication. This was also in line with the Annual Population Survey household series of the time. The change was applied to the back series during 2010 to ensure continuity for analytical purposes. From 2013 onwards, the -8 and -9 categories have been reinstated.

LFS Documentation
The documentation available from the Archive to accompany LFS datasets largely consists of the latest version of each volume alongside the appropriate questionnaire for the year concerned. However, LFS volumes are updated periodically by ONS, so users are advised to check the ONS LFS User Guidance page before commencing analysis.

Additional data derived from the QLFS
The Archive also holds further QLFS series: End User Licence (EUL) quarterly datasets; Secure Access datasets (see below); two-quarter and five-quarter longitudinal datasets; quarterly, annual and ad hoc module datasets compiled for Eurostat; and some additional annual Northern Ireland datasets.

End User Licence and Secure Access QLFS Household datasets
Users should note that there are two discrete versions of the QLFS household datasets. One is available under the standard End User Licence (EUL) agreement, and the other is a Secure Access version. Secure Access household datasets for the QLFS are available from 2009 onwards, and include additional, detailed variables not included in the standard EUL versions. Extra variables that typically can be found in the Secure Access versions but not in the EUL versions relate to: geography; date of birth, including day; education and training; household and family characteristics; employment; unemployment and job hunting; accidents at work and work-related health problems; nationality, national identity and country of birth; occurrence of learning difficulty or disability; and benefits. For full details of variables included, see data dictionary documentation. The Secure Access version (see SN 7674) has more restrictive access conditions than those made available under the standard EUL. Prospective users will need to gain ONS Accredited Researcher status, complete an extra application form and demonstrate to the data owners exactly why they need access to the additional variables. Users are strongly advised to first obtain the standard EUL version of the data to see if they are sufficient for their research requirements.

Changes to variables in QLFS Household EUL datasets
In order to further protect respondent confidentiality, ONS have made some changes to variables available in the EUL datasets. From July-September 2015 onwards, 4-digit industry class is available for main job only, meaning that 3-digit industry group is the most detailed level available for second and last job.

Review of imputation methods for LFS Household data - changes to missing values
A review of the imputation methods used in LFS Household and Family analysis resulted in a change from the January-March 2015 quarter onwards. It was no longer considered appropriate to impute any personal characteristic variables (e.g. religion, ethnicity, country of birth, nationality, national identity, etc.) using the LFS donor imputation method. This method is primarily focused to ensure the 'economic status' of all individuals within a household is known, allowing analysis of the combined economic status of households. This means that from 2015 larger amounts of missing values ('-8'/-9') will be present in the data for these personal characteristic variables than before. Therefore if users need to carry out any time series analysis of households/families which also includes personal characteristic variables covering this time period, then it is advised to filter off 'ioutcome=3' cases from all periods to remove this inconsistent treatment of non-responders.

Occupation data for 2021 and 2022 data files

The ONS has identified an issue with the collection of some occupational data in 2021 and 2022 data files in a number of their surveys. While they estimate any impacts will be small overall, this will affect the accuracy of the breakdowns of some detailed (four-digit Standard Occupational Classification (SOC)) occupations, and data derived from them. Further information can be found in the ONS article published on 11 July 2023: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/revisionofmiscodedoccupationaldataintheonslabourforcesurveyuk/january2021toseptember2022" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Revision of miscoded occupational data in the ONS Labour Force Survey, UK: January 2021 to September 2022.

Latest edition information

For the third edition (September 2023), the variables NSECM20, NSECMJ20, SC2010M, SC20SMJ, SC20SMN, SOC20M and SOC20O have been replaced with new versions. Further information on the SOC revisions can be found in the ONS article published on 11 July 2023: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/revisionofmiscodedoccupationaldataintheonslabourforcesurveyuk/january2021toseptember2022" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Revision of miscoded occupational data in the ONS Labour Force Survey, UK: January 2021 to September 2022.