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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 and SOC20M 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.

A complete list of live websites vulnerable to CWE-230, compiled through global website indexing conducted by WebTechSurvey.

The integration of proteomic datasets, generated by non-cooperating laboratories using different LC-MS/MS setups can overcome limitations in statistically underpowered sample cohorts but has not been demonstrated to this day. In proteomics, differences in sample preservation and preparation strategies, chromatography and mass spectrometry approaches and the used quantification strategy distort protein abundance distributions in integrated datasets. The Removal of these technical batch effects requires setup-specific normalization and strategies that can deal with missing at random (MAR) and missing not at random (MNAR) type values at a time. Algorithms for batch effect removal, such as the ComBat-algorithm, commonly used for other omics types, disregard proteins with MNAR missing values and reduce the informational yield and the effect size for combined datasets significantly. Here, we present a strategy for data harmonization across different tissue preservation techniques, LC-MS/MS instrumentation setups and quantification approaches. To enable batch effect removal without the need for data reduction or error-prone imputation we developed an extension to the ComBat algorithm, ´ComBat HarmonizR, that performs data harmonization with appropriate handling of MAR and MNAR missing values by matrix dissection The ComBat HarmonizR based strategy enables the combined analysis of independently generated proteomic datasets for the first time. Furthermore, we found ComBat HarmonizR to be superior for removing batch effects between different Tandem Mass Tag (TMT)-plexes, compared to commonly used internal reference scaling (iRS). Due to the matrix dissection approach without the need of data imputation, the HarmonizR algorithm can be applied to any type of -omics data while assuring minimal data loss

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.

[ENG] This dataset contains the data used in the tutorial article "Handling Planned and Unplanned Missing Data in a Longitudinal Study", in press at "The Quantitative Methods for Psychology". It contains a subset of longitudinal data collected within the context of a survey about COVID-19 (data on sleep and emotions). This dataset is intended for tutorial purposes only. With the observations and variables in this dataset, the analyses presented in the tutorial can be reproduced. For more information, see de la Sablonnière et al. (2020). [FRE] Ce jeu de données contient les données utilisées dans l'article tutoriel "Handling Planned and Unplanned Missing Data in a Longitudinal Study", sous presse à "The Quantitative Methods for Psychology". Il contient un sous-ensemble de données longitudinales collectées dans le cadre d'une enquête sur le COVID-19 (données sur le sommeil et les émotions). Cet ensemble de données est destiné à des fins didactiques uniquement. Avec les observations et les variables de ce jeu de données, les analyses présentées dans le tutoriel peuvent être reproduites. Pour plus d'informations, voir de la Sablonnière et al. (2020).

Code for analysis of missing data

https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2013/11/20/18/51/autos-214033_1280.jpg" alt="image-2.png">

🚗 About Autoscout Dataset and Handling Missing Values Section 🧹

The Autoscout dataset, available on Kaggle, provides comprehensive information about vehicles listed for sale. This dataset includes a variety of attributes detailing each vehicle, which is essential for conducting detailed analyses of the automotive market.

Part 2: Handling Missing Values

In Part 2: Handling Missing Values, the dataset has undergone rigorous cleaning to address and resolve missing values across several columns. This cleaning process ensures that the data is accurate, complete, and ready for analysis.

Data Fields:

• make_model: Brand and model of the vehicle.
• short_description: Brief description of the vehicle.
• make: Brand or manufacturer of the vehicle.
• model: Model name of the vehicle.
• location: Geographical location of the vehicle.
• price: Price of the vehicle.
• body_type: Body type or style of the vehicle.
• type: Type of the vehicle.
• doors: Number of doors in the vehicle.
• country_version: Country version of the vehicle.
• offer_number: Offer number associated with the listing.
• warranty: Warranty status of the vehicle.
• mileage: Mileage or distance traveled by the vehicle.
• first_registration: Date of the vehicle's first registration.
• gearbox: Type of gearbox or transmission.
• fuel_type: Fuel type used by the vehicle.
• colour: Color of the vehicle.
• paint: Type of paint used on the vehicle.
• desc: Detailed description of the vehicle.
• seller: Seller of the vehicle.
• seats: Number of seats in the vehicle.
• power: Engine power of the vehicle.
• engine_size: Engine size of the vehicle.
• gears: Number of gears in the vehicle.
• co_emissions: CO₂ emissions of the vehicle.
• manufacturer_colour: Manufacturer's designated color for the vehicle.
• drivetrain: Type of drivetrain in the vehicle.
• cylinders: Number of cylinders in the engine.
• fuel_consumption: Fuel consumption of the vehicle.
• comfort_&convenience: Comfort and convenience features.
• entertainment&media: Entertainment and media features.
• safety&_security: Safety and security features.
• extras: Additional or extra features.
• empty_weight: Empty weight of the vehicle.
• model_code: Model code of the vehicle.
• general_inspection: General inspection status.
• last_service: Date of the last service.
• full_service_history: Full service history status.
• non_smoker_vehicle: Non-smoker vehicle status.
• emission_class: Emission class of the vehicle.
• emissions_sticker: Emissions sticker status.
• upholstery_colour: Upholstery color.
• upholstery: Type of upholstery.
• production_date: Production date of the vehicle.
• previous_owner: Previous owner information.
• other_fuel_types: Other compatible fuel types.
• power_consumption: Power consumption of the vehicle.
• energy_efficiency_class: Energy efficiency class.
• co_efficiency: CO₂ efficiency.
• fuel_consumption_wltp: WLTP fuel consumption.
• co_emissions_wltp: WLTP CO₂ emissions.
• available_from: Availability date of the vehicle.
• taxi_or_rental_car: Whether the vehicle was used as a taxi or rental car.
• availability: Availability status.
• last_timing_belt_change: Date of the last timing belt change.
• electric_range_wltp: WLTP electric range.
• power_consumption_wltp: WLTP power consumption.
• battery_ownership: Battery ownership status in electric vehicles.

This cleaning process is crucial for ensuring the dataset's quality and reliability, facilitating accurate analysis and insights.

Restaurant Sales Dataset with Dirt Documentation

Overview

The Restaurant Sales Dataset with Dirt contains data for 17,534 transactions. The data introduces realistic inconsistencies ("dirt") to simulate real-world scenarios where data may have missing or incomplete information. The dataset includes sales details across multiple categories, such as starters, main dishes, desserts, drinks, and side dishes.

Dataset Use Cases

This dataset is suitable for: - Practicing data cleaning tasks, such as handling missing values and deducing missing information. - Conducting exploratory data analysis (EDA) to study restaurant sales patterns. - Feature engineering to create new variables for machine learning tasks.

Columns Description

Column Name	Description	Example Values
Order ID	A unique identifier for each order.	ORD_123456
Customer ID	A unique identifier for each customer.	CUST_001
Category	The category of the purchased item.	Main Dishes, Drinks
Item	The name of the purchased item. May contain missing values due to data dirt.	Grilled Chicken, None
Price	The static price of the item. May contain missing values.	15.0, None
Quantity	The quantity of the purchased item. May contain missing values.	1, None
Order Total	The total price for the order (Price * Quantity). May contain missing values.	45.0, None
Order Date	The date when the order was placed. Always present.	2022-01-15
Payment Method	The payment method used for the transaction. May contain missing values due to data dirt.	Cash, None

Key Characteristics

1. Data Dirtiness:

   • Missing values in key columns (Item, Price, Quantity, Order Total, Payment Method) simulate real-world challenges.
   • At least one of the following conditions is ensured for each record to identify an item:
     • Item is present.
     • Price is present.
     • Both Quantity and Order Total are present.
   • If Price or Quantity is missing, the other is used to deduce the missing value (e.g., Order Total / Quantity).

2. Menu Categories and Items:

   • Items are divided into five categories:
     • Starters: E.g., Chicken Melt, French Fries.
     • Main Dishes: E.g., Grilled Chicken, Steak.
     • Desserts: E.g., Chocolate Cake, Ice Cream.
     • Drinks: E.g., Coca Cola, Water.
     • Side Dishes: E.g., Mashed Potatoes, Garlic Bread.

3 Time Range: - Orders span from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023.

Cleaning Suggestions

1. Handle Missing Values:

   • Fill missing Order Total or Quantity using the formula: Order Total = Price * Quantity.
   • Deduce missing Price from Order Total / Quantity if both are available.

2. Validate Data Consistency:

   • Ensure that calculated values (Order Total = Price * Quantity) match.

3. Analyze Missing Patterns:

   • Study the distribution of missing values across categories and payment methods.

Menu Map with Prices and Categories

Category	Item	Price
Starters	Chicken Melt	8.0
Starters	French Fries	4.0
Starters	Cheese Fries	5.0
Starters	Sweet Potato Fries	5.0
Starters	Beef Chili	7.0
Starters	Nachos Grande	10.0
Main Dishes	Grilled Chicken	15.0
Main Dishes	Steak	20.0
Main Dishes	Pasta Alfredo	12.0
Main Dishes	Salmon	18.0
Main Dishes	Vegetarian Platter	14.0
Desserts	Chocolate Cake	6.0
Desserts	Ice Cream	5.0
Desserts	Fruit Salad	4.0
Desserts	Cheesecake	7.0
Desserts	Brownie	6.0
Drinks	Coca Cola	2.5
Drinks	Orange Juice	3.0
Drinks ...

This dataset is an initial set of locations identified using the criteria described above. However, these data were subsetted to a smaller set of 20,000 randomly selected locations that did not contain missing values for any of the variables required in the subsequent analysis. The full procedure for this subsetting is contained in the associated Github repository (https://github.com/absimler/nonrandom-seedings).

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.

Ecologists use classifications of individuals in categories to understand composition of populations and communities. These categories might be defined by demographics, functional traits, or species. Assignment of categories is often imperfect, but frequently treated as observations without error. When individuals are observed but not classified, these “partial” observations must be modified to include the missing data mechanism to avoid spurious inference.

We developed two hierarchical Bayesian models to overcome the assumption of perfect assignment to mutually exclusive categories in the multinomial distribution of categorical counts, when classifications are missing. These models incorporate auxiliary information to adjust the posterior distributions of the proportions of membership in categories. In one model, we use an empirical Bayes approach, where a subset of data from one year serves as a prior for the missing data the next. In the other approach, we use a small random sample of data within a year to inform the distribution of the missing data.

We performed a simulation to show the bias that occurs when partial observations were ignored and demonstrated the altered inference for the estimation of demographic ratios. We applied our models to demographic classifications of elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) to demonstrate improved inference for the proportions of sex and stage classes.

We developed multiple modeling approaches using a generalizable nested multinomial structure to account for partially observed data that were missing not at random for classification counts. Accounting for classification uncertainty is important to accurately understand the composition of populations and communities in ecological studies.

1.The analysis of morphological diversity frequently relies on the use of multivariate methods for characterizing biological shape. However, many of these methods are intolerant of missing data, which can limit the use of rare taxa and hinder the study of broad patterns of ecological diversity and morphological evolution. This study applied a mutli-dataset approach to compare variation in missing data estimation and its effect on geometric morphometric analysis across taxonomically-variable groups, landmark position and sample sizes. 2.Missing morphometric landmark data was simulated from five real, complete datasets, including modern fish, primates and extinct theropod dinosaurs. Missing landmarks were then estimated using several standard approaches and a geometric-morphometric-specific method. The accuracy of missing data estimation was determined for each estimation method, landmark position, and morphological dataset. Procrustes superimposition was used to compare the eigenvectors and principal component scores of a geometric morphometric analysis of the original landmark data, to datasets with A) missing values estimated, or B) simulated incomplete specimens excluded, for varying levels of specimens incompleteness and sample sizes. 3.Standard estimation techniques were more reliable estimators and had lower impacts on morphometric analysis compared to a geometric-morphometric-specific estimator. For most datasets and estimation techniques, estimating missing data produced a better fit to the structure of the original data than exclusion of incomplete specimens, and this was maintained even at considerably reduced sample sizes. The impact of missing data on geometric morphometric analysis was disproportionately affected by the most fragmentary specimens. 4.Missing data estimation was influenced by variability of specific anatomical features, and may be improved by a better understanding of shape variation present in a dataset. Our results suggest that the inclusion of incomplete specimens through the use of effective missing data estimators better reflects the patterns of shape variation within a dataset than using only complete specimens, however the effectiveness of missing data estimation can be maximized by excluding only the most incomplete specimens. It is advised that missing data estimators be evaluated for each dataset and landmark independently, as the effectiveness of estimators can vary strongly and unpredictably between different taxa and structures.

1.110 respondents from CH, DE, FR and UK, individual level data, Facebook recruited via Limesurvey, timeframe of data collection: July - December 2020. Indiviuals 18+ were targeted (+ filtered on question on voting rights). Questions on democratic ideals (likert scales and 100-points), socio-demographics, pre-study for question testing, not representative, Entries without data were deleted. Dummy-variables at end only for countries (based on variable "country"). No missing values treatment.