PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (1771540)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Multiple imputation for non-response when estimating HIV prevalence using survey data 
BMC Public Health  2015;15:1059.
Background
Missing data are a common feature in many areas of research especially those involving survey data in biological, health and social sciences research. Most of the analyses of the survey data are done taking a complete-case approach, that is taking a list-wise deletion of all cases with missing values assuming that missing values are missing completely at random (MCAR). Methods that are based on substituting the missing values with single values such as the last value carried forward, the mean and regression predictions (single imputations) are also used. These methods often result in potential bias in estimates, in loss of statistical information and in loss of distributional relationships between variables. In addition, the strong MCAR assumption is not tenable in most practical instances.
Methods
Since missing data are a major problem in HIV research, the current research seeks to illustrate and highlight the strength of multiple imputation procedure, as a method of handling missing data, which comes from its ability to draw multiple values for the missing observations from plausible predictive distributions for them. This is particularly important in HIV research in sub-Saharan Africa where accurate collection of (complete) data is still a challenge. Furthermore the multiple imputation accounts for the uncertainty introduced by the very process of imputing values for the missing observations. In particular national and subgroup estimates of HIV prevalence in Zimbabwe were computed using multiply imputed data sets from the 2010–11 Zimbabwe Demographic and Health Surveys (2010–11 ZDHS) data. A survey logistic regression model for HIV prevalence and demographic and socio-economic variables was used as the substantive analysis model. The results for both the complete-case analysis and the multiple imputation analysis are presented and discussed.
Results
Across different subgroups of the population, the crude estimates of HIV prevalence are generally not identical but their variations are consistent between the two approaches (complete-case analysis and multiple imputation analysis). The estimates of standard errors under the multiple imputation are predominantly smaller, hence leading to narrower confidence intervals, than under the complete case analysis. Under the logistic regression adjusted odds ratios vary greatly between the two approaches. The model based confidence intervals for the adjusted odds ratios are wider under the multiple imputation which is indicative of the inclusion of a combined measure of the within and between imputation variability.
Conclusions
There is considerable variation between estimates obtained between the two approaches. The use of multiple imputations allows the uncertainty brought about by the imputation process to be measured. This consequently yields more reliable estimates of the parameters of interest and reduce the chances of declaring significant effects unnecessarily (type I error). In addition, the utilization of the powerful and flexible statistical computing packages in R enhances the computations.
doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2390-1
PMCID: PMC4609081  PMID: 26475303
Complete case analysis; Multiple imputation; Missing at random; Design-consistent estimates
2.  Bias Characterization in Probabilistic Genotype Data and Improved Signal Detection with Multiple Imputation 
PLoS Genetics  2016;12(6):e1006091.
Missing data are an unavoidable component of modern statistical genetics. Different array or sequencing technologies cover different single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), leading to a complicated mosaic pattern of missingness where both individual genotypes and entire SNPs are sporadically absent. Such missing data patterns cannot be ignored without introducing bias, yet cannot be inferred exclusively from nonmissing data. In genome-wide association studies, the accepted solution to missingness is to impute missing data using external reference haplotypes. The resulting probabilistic genotypes may be analyzed in the place of genotype calls. A general-purpose paradigm, called Multiple Imputation (MI), is known to model uncertainty in many contexts, yet it is not widely used in association studies. Here, we undertake a systematic evaluation of existing imputed data analysis methods and MI. We characterize biases related to uncertainty in association studies, and find that bias is introduced both at the imputation level, when imputation algorithms generate inconsistent genotype probabilities, and at the association level, when analysis methods inadequately model genotype uncertainty. We find that MI performs at least as well as existing methods or in some cases much better, and provides a straightforward paradigm for adapting existing genotype association methods to uncertain data.
Author Summary
Genetic research has been focused at analysis of datapoints that are assumed to be deterministically known. However, the majority of current, high throughput data is only probabilistically known, and proper methods for handing such uncertain genotypes are limited. Here, we build on existing theory from the field of statistics to introduce a general framework for handling probabilistic genotype data obtained through genotype imputation. This framework, called Multiple Imputation, matches or improves upon existing methods for handling uncertainty in basic analysis of genetic association. As opposed to such methods, our work furthermore extends to more advanced analysis, such as mixed-effects models, with no additional complication. Importantly, it generates posterior probabilities of association that are intrinsically weighted by the certainty of the underlying data, a feature unmatched by other existing methods. Multiple Imputation is also fully compatible with meta-analysis. Finally, our analysis of probabilistic genotype data brings into focus the accuracy and unreliability of imputation’s estimated probabilities. Taken together, these results substantially increase the utility of imputed genotypes in statistical genetics, and may have strong implications for analysis of sequencing data moving forward.
doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1006091
PMCID: PMC4910998  PMID: 27310603
3.  Accuracy of genome-wide imputation of untyped markers and impacts on statistical power for association studies 
BMC Genetics  2009;10:27.
Background
Although high-throughput genotyping arrays have made whole-genome association studies (WGAS) feasible, only a small proportion of SNPs in the human genome are actually surveyed in such studies. In addition, various SNP arrays assay different sets of SNPs, which leads to challenges in comparing results and merging data for meta-analyses. Genome-wide imputation of untyped markers allows us to address these issues in a direct fashion.
Methods
384 Caucasian American liver donors were genotyped using Illumina 650Y (Ilmn650Y) arrays, from which we also derived genotypes from the Ilmn317K array. On these data, we compared two imputation methods: MACH and BEAGLE. We imputed 2.5 million HapMap Release22 SNPs, and conducted GWAS on ~40,000 liver mRNA expression traits (eQTL analysis). In addition, 200 Caucasian American and 200 African American subjects were genotyped using the Affymetrix 500 K array plus a custom 164 K fill-in chip. We then imputed the HapMap SNPs and quantified the accuracy by randomly masking observed SNPs.
Results
MACH and BEAGLE perform similarly with respect to imputation accuracy. The Ilmn650Y results in excellent imputation performance, and it outperforms Affx500K or Ilmn317K sets. For Caucasian Americans, 90% of the HapMap SNPs were imputed at 98% accuracy. As expected, imputation of poorly tagged SNPs (untyped SNPs in weak LD with typed markers) was not as successful. It was more challenging to impute genotypes in the African American population, given (1) shorter LD blocks and (2) admixture with Caucasian populations in this population. To address issue (2), we pooled HapMap CEU and YRI data as an imputation reference set, which greatly improved overall performance. The approximate 40,000 phenotypes scored in these populations provide a path to determine empirically how the power to detect associations is affected by the imputation procedures. That is, at a fixed false discovery rate, the number of cis-eQTL discoveries detected by various methods can be interpreted as their relative statistical power in the GWAS. In this study, we find that imputation offer modest additional power (by 4%) on top of either Ilmn317K or Ilmn650Y, much less than the power gain from Ilmn317K to Ilmn650Y (13%).
Conclusion
Current algorithms can accurately impute genotypes for untyped markers, which enables researchers to pool data between studies conducted using different SNP sets. While genotyping itself results in a small error rate (e.g. 0.5%), imputing genotypes is surprisingly accurate. We found that dense marker sets (e.g. Ilmn650Y) outperform sparser ones (e.g. Ilmn317K) in terms of imputation yield and accuracy. We also noticed it was harder to impute genotypes for African American samples, partially due to population admixture, although using a pooled reference boosts performance. Interestingly, GWAS carried out using imputed genotypes only slightly increased power on top of assayed SNPs. The reason is likely due to adding more markers via imputation only results in modest gain in genetic coverage, but worsens the multiple testing penalties. Furthermore, cis-eQTL mapping using dense SNP set derived from imputation achieves great resolution, and locate associate peak closer to causal variants than conventional approach.
doi:10.1186/1471-2156-10-27
PMCID: PMC2709633  PMID: 19531258
4.  Collaborative Automation Reliably Remediating Erroneous Conclusion Threats (CARRECT) 
Objective
The objective of the CARRECT software is to make cutting edge statistical methods for reducing bias in epidemiological studies easy to use and useful for both novice and expert users.
Introduction
Analyses produced by epidemiologists and public health practitioners are susceptible to bias from a number of sources including missing data, confounding variables, and statistical model selection. It often requires a great deal of expertise to understand and apply the multitude of tests, corrections, and selection rules, and these tasks can be time-consuming and burdensome. To address this challenge, Aptima began development of CARRECT, the Collaborative Automation Reliably Remediating Erroneous Conclusion Threats system. When complete, CARRECT will provide an expert system that can be embedded in an analyst’s workflow. CARRECT will support statistical bias reduction and improved analyses and decision making by engaging the user in a collaborative process in which the technology is transparent to the analyst.
Methods
Older approaches to imputing missing data, including mean imputation and single imputation regression methods, have steadily given way to a class of methods known as “multiple imputation” (hereafter “MI”; Rubin 1987). Rather than making the restrictive assumption that the data are missing completely at random (MCAR), MI typically assumes the data are missing at random (MAR).
There are two key innovations behind MI. First, the observed values can be useful in predicting the missing cells, and thus specifying a joint distribution of the data is the first step in implementing the models. Second, single imputation methods will likely fail not only because of the inherent uncertainty in the missing values but also because of the estimation uncertainty associated with generating the parameters in the imputation procedure itself. By contrast, drawing the missing values multiple times, thereby generating m complete datasets along with the estimated parameters of the model properly accounts for both types of uncertainty (Rubin 1987; King et al. 2001). As a result, MI will lead to valid standard errors and confidence intervals along with unbiased point estimates.
In order to compute the joint distribution, CARRECT uses a bootstrapping-based algorithm that gives essentially the same answers as the standard Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) or Expectation Maximization (EM) approaches, is usually considerably faster than existing approaches and can handle many more variables.
Results
Tests were conducted on one of the proposed methods with an epidemiological dataset from the Integrated Health Interview Series (IHIS) producing verifiably unbiased results despite high missingness rates. In addition, mockups (Figure 1) were created of an intuitive data wizard that guides the user through the analysis processes by analyzing key features of a given dataset. The mockups also show prompts for the user to provide additional substantive knowledge to improve the handling of imperfect datasets, as well as the selection of the most appropriate algorithms and models.
Conclusions
Our approach and program were designed to make bias mitigation much more accessible to much more than only the statistical elite. We hope that it will have a wide impact on reducing bias in epidemiological studies and provide more accurate information to policymakers.
PMCID: PMC3692841
Bias reduction; Missing data; Statistical model selection
5.  Imputation strategies for missing binary outcomes in cluster randomized trials 
Background
Attrition, which leads to missing data, is a common problem in cluster randomized trials (CRTs), where groups of patients rather than individuals are randomized. Standard multiple imputation (MI) strategies may not be appropriate to impute missing data from CRTs since they assume independent data. In this paper, under the assumption of missing completely at random and covariate dependent missing, we compared six MI strategies which account for the intra-cluster correlation for missing binary outcomes in CRTs with the standard imputation strategies and complete case analysis approach using a simulation study.
Method
We considered three within-cluster and three across-cluster MI strategies for missing binary outcomes in CRTs. The three within-cluster MI strategies are logistic regression method, propensity score method, and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method, which apply standard MI strategies within each cluster. The three across-cluster MI strategies are propensity score method, random-effects (RE) logistic regression approach, and logistic regression with cluster as a fixed effect. Based on the community hypertension assessment trial (CHAT) which has complete data, we designed a simulation study to investigate the performance of above MI strategies.
Results
The estimated treatment effect and its 95% confidence interval (CI) from generalized estimating equations (GEE) model based on the CHAT complete dataset are 1.14 (0.76 1.70). When 30% of binary outcome are missing completely at random, a simulation study shows that the estimated treatment effects and the corresponding 95% CIs from GEE model are 1.15 (0.76 1.75) if complete case analysis is used, 1.12 (0.72 1.73) if within-cluster MCMC method is used, 1.21 (0.80 1.81) if across-cluster RE logistic regression is used, and 1.16 (0.82 1.64) if standard logistic regression which does not account for clustering is used.
Conclusion
When the percentage of missing data is low or intra-cluster correlation coefficient is small, different approaches for handling missing binary outcome data generate quite similar results. When the percentage of missing data is large, standard MI strategies, which do not take into account the intra-cluster correlation, underestimate the variance of the treatment effect. Within-cluster and across-cluster MI strategies (except for random-effects logistic regression MI strategy), which take the intra-cluster correlation into account, seem to be more appropriate to handle the missing outcome from CRTs. Under the same imputation strategy and percentage of missingness, the estimates of the treatment effect from GEE and RE logistic regression models are similar.
doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-18
PMCID: PMC3055218  PMID: 21324148
6.  Ascertainment bias from imputation methods evaluation in wheat 
BMC Genomics  2016;17:773.
Background
Whole-genome genotyping techniques like Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) are being used for genetic studies such as Genome-Wide Association (GWAS) and Genomewide Selection (GS), where different strategies for imputation have been developed. Nevertheless, imputation error may lead to poor performance (i.e. smaller power or higher false positive rate) when complete data is not required as it is for GWAS, and each marker is taken at a time. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of GWAS analysis for Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) of major and minor effect using different imputation methods when no reference panel is available in a wheat GBS panel.
Results
In this study, we compared the power and false positive rate of dissecting quantitative traits for imputed and not-imputed marker score matrices in: (1) a complete molecular marker barley panel array, and (2) a GBS wheat panel with missing data. We found that there is an ascertainment bias in imputation method comparisons. Simulating over a complete matrix and creating missing data at random proved that imputation methods have a poorer performance. Furthermore, we found that when QTL were simulated with imputed data, the imputation methods performed better than the not-imputed ones. On the other hand, when QTL were simulated with not-imputed data, the not-imputed method and one of the imputation methods performed better for dissecting quantitative traits. Moreover, larger differences between imputation methods were detected for QTL of major effect than QTL of minor effect. We also compared the different marker score matrices for GWAS analysis in a real wheat phenotype dataset, and we found minimal differences indicating that imputation did not improve the GWAS performance when a reference panel was not available.
Conclusions
Poorer performance was found in GWAS analysis when an imputed marker score matrix was used, no reference panel is available, in a wheat GBS panel.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12864-016-3120-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
doi:10.1186/s12864-016-3120-5
PMCID: PMC5050639  PMID: 27716058
GBS; QTL; GWAS; Power; False positive
7.  Imputation methods for missing data for polygenic models 
BMC Genetics  2003;4(Suppl 1):S42.
Methods to handle missing data have been an area of statistical research for many years. Little has been done within the context of pedigree analysis. In this paper we present two methods for imputing missing data for polygenic models using family data. The imputation schemes take into account familial relationships and use the observed familial information for the imputation. A traditional multiple imputation approach and multiple imputation or data augmentation approach within a Gibbs sampler for the handling of missing data for a polygenic model are presented.
We used both the Genetic Analysis Workshop 13 simulated missing phenotype and the complete phenotype data sets as the means to illustrate the two methods. We looked at the phenotypic trait systolic blood pressure and the covariate gender at time point 11 (1970) for Cohort 1 and time point 1 (1971) for Cohort 2. Comparing the results for three replicates of complete and missing data incorporating multiple imputation, we find that multiple imputation via a Gibbs sampler produces more accurate results. Thus, we recommend the Gibbs sampler for imputation purposes because of the ease with which it can be extended to more complicated models, the consistency of the results, and the accountability of the variation due to imputation.
doi:10.1186/1471-2156-4-S1-S42
PMCID: PMC1866478  PMID: 14975110
8.  Multiple imputation of multiple multi-item scales when a full imputation model is infeasible 
BMC Research Notes  2016;9:45.
Background
Missing data in a large scale survey presents major challenges. We focus on performing multiple imputation by chained equations when data contain multiple incomplete multi-item scales. Recent authors have proposed imputing such data at the level of the individual item, but this can lead to infeasibly large imputation models.
Methods
We use data gathered from a large multinational survey, where analysis uses separate logistic regression models in each of nine country-specific data sets. In these data, applying multiple imputation by chained equations to the individual scale items is computationally infeasible. We propose an adaptation of multiple imputation by chained equations which imputes the individual scale items but reduces the number of variables in the imputation models by replacing most scale items with scale summary scores. We evaluate the feasibility of the proposed approach and compare it with a complete case analysis. We perform a simulation study to compare the proposed method with alternative approaches: we do this in a simplified setting to allow comparison with the full imputation model.
Results
For the case study, the proposed approach reduces the size of the prediction models from 134 predictors to a maximum of 72 and makes multiple imputation by chained equations computationally feasible. Distributions of imputed data are seen to be consistent with observed data. Results from the regression analysis with multiple imputation are similar to, but more precise than, results for complete case analysis; for the same regression models a 39 % reduction in the standard error is observed. The simulation shows that our proposed method can perform comparably against the alternatives.
Conclusions
By substantially reducing imputation model sizes, our adaptation makes multiple imputation feasible for large scale survey data with multiple multi-item scales. For the data considered, analysis of the multiply imputed data shows greater power and efficiency than complete case analysis. The adaptation of multiple imputation makes better use of available data and can yield substantively different results from simpler techniques.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-016-1853-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
doi:10.1186/s13104-016-1853-5
PMCID: PMC4727289  PMID: 26809812
Missing data; Multiple imputation; Multi-item scale; Survey data
9.  Reporting and handling of missing data in predictive research for prevalent undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review 
The EPMA Journal  2015;6(1):7.
Missing values are common in health research and omitting participants with missing data often leads to loss of statistical power, biased estimates and, consequently, inaccurate inferences. We critically reviewed the challenges posed by missing data in medical research and approaches to address them. To achieve this more efficiently, these issues were analyzed and illustrated through a systematic review on the reporting of missing data and imputation methods (prediction of missing values through relationships within and between variables) undertaken in risk prediction studies of undiagnosed diabetes. Prevalent diabetes risk models were selected based on a recent comprehensive systematic review, supplemented by an updated search of English-language studies published between 1997 and 2014. Reporting of missing data has been limited in studies of prevalent diabetes prediction. Of the 48 articles identified, 62.5% (n = 30) did not report any information on missing data or handling techniques. In 21 (43.8%) studies, researchers opted out of imputation, completing case-wise deletion of participants missing any predictor values. Although imputation methods are encouraged to handle missing data and ensure the accuracy of inferences, this has seldom been the case in studies of diabetes risk prediction. Hence, we elaborated on the various types and patterns of missing data, the limitations of case-wise deletion and state-of the-art methods of imputations and their challenges. This review highlights the inexperience or disregard of investigators of the effect of missing data in risk prediction research. Formal guidelines may enhance the reporting and appropriate handling of missing data in scientific journals.
doi:10.1186/s13167-015-0028-0
PMCID: PMC4380106  PMID: 25829972
Predictive; Preventive and Personalized Medicine; Diabetes mellitus; Risk; Guidelines; Patterns; Screening; Modeling; Patient Stratification
10.  Dealing with missing data in the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression self-report scale: a study based on the French E3N cohort 
Background
The Center for Epidemiologic Studies - Depression scale (CES-D) is a validated tool commonly used to screen depressive symptoms. As with any self-administered questionnaire, missing data are frequently observed and can strongly bias any inference. The objective of this study was to investigate the best approach for handling missing data in the CES-D scale.
Methods
Among the 71,412 women from the French E3N prospective cohort (Etude Epidémiologique auprès des femmes de la Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale) who returned the questionnaire comprising the CES-D scale in 2005, 45% had missing values in the scale. The reasons for failure to complete certain items were investigated by semi-directive interviews on a random sample of 204 participants. The prevalence of high depressive symptoms (score ≥16, hDS) was estimated after applying various methods for ignorable missing data including multiple imputation using imputation models with CES-D items with or without covariates. The accuracy of imputation models was investigated. Various scenarios of nonignorable missing data mechanisms were investigated by a sensitivity analysis based on the mixture modelling approach.
Results
The interviews showed that participants were not reluctant to answer the CES-D scale. Possible reasons for nonresponse were identified. The prevalence of hDS among complete responders was 26.1%. After multiple imputation, the prevalence was 28.6%, 29.8% and 31.7% for women presenting up to 4, 10 and 20 missing values, respectively. The estimates were robust to the various imputation models investigated and to the scenarios of nonignorable missing data.
Conclusions
The CES-D scale can easily be used in large cohorts even in the presence of missing data. Based on the results from both a qualitative study and a sensitivity analysis under various scenarios of missing data mechanism in a population of women, missing data mechanism does not appear to be nonignorable and estimates are robust to departures from ignorability. Multiple imputation is recommended to reliably handle missing data in the CES-D scale.
doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-28
PMCID: PMC3602286  PMID: 23433105
CES-D; Cohort; Missing data; Multiple imputation; Non ignorable; Sensitivity analysis
11.  Missing value imputation for epistatic MAPs 
BMC Bioinformatics  2010;11:197.
Background
Epistatic miniarray profiling (E-MAPs) is a high-throughput approach capable of quantifying aggravating or alleviating genetic interactions between gene pairs. The datasets resulting from E-MAP experiments typically take the form of a symmetric pairwise matrix of interaction scores. These datasets have a significant number of missing values - up to 35% - that can reduce the effectiveness of some data analysis techniques and prevent the use of others. An effective method for imputing interactions would therefore increase the types of possible analysis, as well as increase the potential to identify novel functional interactions between gene pairs. Several methods have been developed to handle missing values in microarray data, but it is unclear how applicable these methods are to E-MAP data because of their pairwise nature and the significantly larger number of missing values. Here we evaluate four alternative imputation strategies, three local (Nearest neighbor-based) and one global (PCA-based), that have been modified to work with symmetric pairwise data.
Results
We identify different categories for the missing data based on their underlying cause, and show that values from the largest category can be imputed effectively. We compare local and global imputation approaches across a variety of distinct E-MAP datasets, showing that both are competitive and preferable to filling in with zeros. In addition we show that these methods are effective in an E-MAP from a different species, suggesting that pairwise imputation techniques will be increasingly useful as analogous epistasis mapping techniques are developed in different species. We show that strongly alleviating interactions are significantly more difficult to predict than strongly aggravating interactions. Finally we show that imputed interactions, generated using nearest neighbor methods, are enriched for annotations in the same manner as measured interactions. Therefore our method potentially expands the number of mapped epistatic interactions. In addition we make implementations of our algorithms available for use by other researchers.
Conclusions
We address the problem of missing value imputation for E-MAPs, and suggest the use of symmetric nearest neighbor based approaches as they offer consistently accurate imputations across multiple datasets in a tractable manner.
doi:10.1186/1471-2105-11-197
PMCID: PMC2873538  PMID: 20406472
12.  A review of the handling of missing longitudinal outcome data in clinical trials 
Trials  2014;15:237.
The aim of this review was to establish the frequency with which trials take into account missingness, and to discover what methods trialists use for adjustment in randomised controlled trials with longitudinal measurements. Failing to address the problems that can arise from missing outcome data can result in misleading conclusions. Missing data should be addressed as a means of a sensitivity analysis of the complete case analysis results. One hundred publications of randomised controlled trials with longitudinal measurements were selected randomly from trial publications from the years 2005 to 2012. Information was extracted from these trials, including whether reasons for dropout were reported, what methods were used for handing the missing data, whether there was any explanation of the methods for missing data handling, and whether a statistician was involved in the analysis. The main focus of the review was on missing data post dropout rather than missing interim data. Of all the papers in the study, 9 (9%) had no missing data. More than half of the papers included in the study failed to make any attempt to explain the reasons for their choice of missing data handling method. Of the papers with clear missing data handling methods, 44 papers (50%) used adequate methods of missing data handling, whereas 30 (34%) of the papers used missing data methods which may not have been appropriate. In the remaining 17 papers (19%), it was difficult to assess the validity of the methods used. An imputation method was used in 18 papers (20%). Multiple imputation methods were introduced in 1987 and are an efficient way of accounting for missing data in general, and yet only 4 papers used these methods. Out of the 18 papers which used imputation, only 7 displayed the results as a sensitivity analysis of the complete case analysis results. 61% of the papers that used an imputation explained the reasons for their chosen method. Just under a third of the papers made no reference to reasons for missing outcome data. There was little consistency in reporting of missing data within longitudinal trials.
doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-237
PMCID: PMC4087243  PMID: 24947664
Review; Missing; Data; Handling; Longitudinal; Repeated; Measures
13.  Multiple imputation of missing fMRI data in whole brain analysis 
Neuroimage  2012;60(3):1843-1855.
Whole brain fMRI analyses rarely include the entire brain because of missing data that result from data acquisition limits and susceptibility artifact, in particular. This missing data problem is typically addressed by omitting voxels from analysis, which may exclude brain regions that are of theoretical interest and increase the potential for Type II error at cortical boundaries or Type I error when spatial thresholds are used to establish significance. Imputation could significantly expand statistical map coverage, increase power, and enhance interpretations of fMRI results. We examined multiple imputation for group level analyses of missing fMRI data using methods that leverage the spatial information in fMRI datasets for both real and simulated data. Available case analysis, neighbor replacement, and regression based imputation approaches were compared in a general linear model framework to determine the extent to which these methods quantitatively (effect size) and qualitatively (spatial coverage) increased the sensitivity of group analyses. In both real and simulated data analysis, multiple imputation provided 1) variance that was most similar to estimates for voxels with no missing data, 2) fewer false positive errors in comparison to mean replacement, and 3) fewer false negative errors in comparison to available case analysis. Compared to the standard analysis approach of omitting voxels with missing data, imputation methods increased brain coverage in this study by 35% (from 33,323 to 45,071 voxels). In addition, multiple imputation increased the size of significant clusters by 58% and number of significant clusters across statistical thresholds, compared to the standard voxel omission approach. While neighbor replacement produced similar results, we recommend multiple imputation because it uses an informed sampling distribution to deal with missing data across subjects that can include neighbor values and other predictors. Multiple imputation is anticipated to be particularly useful for 1) large fMRI data sets with inconsistent missing voxels across subjects and 2) addressing the problem of increased artifact at ultra-high field, which significantly limit the extent of whole brain coverage and interpretations of results.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.123
PMCID: PMC3328786  PMID: 22500925
missing data; fMRI; group analysis; multiple imputation; replacement; neuroimaging methods
14.  Imputation method for lifetime exposure assessment in air pollution epidemiologic studies 
Environmental Health  2013;12:62.
Background
Environmental epidemiology, when focused on the life course of exposure to a specific pollutant, requires historical exposure estimates that are difficult to obtain for the full time period due to gaps in the historical record, especially in earlier years. We show that these gaps can be filled by applying multiple imputation methods to a formal risk equation that incorporates lifetime exposure. We also address challenges that arise, including choice of imputation method, potential bias in regression coefficients, and uncertainty in age-at-exposure sensitivities.
Methods
During time periods when parameters needed in the risk equation are missing for an individual, the parameters are filled by an imputation model using group level information or interpolation. A random component is added to match the variance found in the estimates for study subjects not needing imputation. The process is repeated to obtain multiple data sets, whose regressions against health data can be combined statistically to develop confidence limits using Rubin’s rules to account for the uncertainty introduced by the imputations. To test for possible recall bias between cases and controls, which can occur when historical residence location is obtained by interview, and which can lead to misclassification of imputed exposure by disease status, we introduce an “incompleteness index,” equal to the percentage of dose imputed (PDI) for a subject. “Effective doses” can be computed using different functional dependencies of relative risk on age of exposure, allowing intercomparison of different risk models. To illustrate our approach, we quantify lifetime exposure (dose) from traffic air pollution in an established case–control study on Long Island, New York, where considerable in-migration occurred over a period of many decades.
Results
The major result is the described approach to imputation. The illustrative example revealed potential recall bias, suggesting that regressions against health data should be done as a function of PDI to check for consistency of results. The 1% of study subjects who lived for long durations near heavily trafficked intersections, had very high cumulative exposures. Thus, imputation methods must be designed to reproduce non-standard distributions.
Conclusions
Our approach meets a number of methodological challenges to extending historical exposure reconstruction over a lifetime and shows promise for environmental epidemiology. Application to assessment of breast cancer risks will be reported in a subsequent manuscript.
doi:10.1186/1476-069X-12-62
PMCID: PMC3751034  PMID: 23919666
Exposure; Air pollution; Traffic; Benzo(a)pyrene; PAH; Multiple imputation; Epidemiology; In-migration; Dose
15.  Multiple-trait quantitative trait locus mapping with incomplete phenotypic data 
BMC Genetics  2008;9:82.
Background
Conventional multiple-trait quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping methods must discard cases (individuals) with incomplete phenotypic data, thereby sacrificing other phenotypic and genotypic information contained in the discarded cases. Under standard assumptions about the missing-data mechanism, it is possible to exploit these cases.
Results
We present an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm, derived for recombinant inbred and F2 genetic models but extensible to any mating design, that supports conventional hypothesis tests for QTL main effect, pleiotropy, and QTL-by-environment interaction in multiple-trait analyses with missing phenotypic data. We evaluate its performance by simulations and illustrate with a real-data example.
Conclusion
The EM method affords improved QTL detection power and precision of QTL location and effect estimation in comparison with case deletion or imputation methods. It may be incorporated into any least-squares or likelihood-maximization QTL-mapping approach.
doi:10.1186/1471-2156-9-82
PMCID: PMC2639387  PMID: 19061502
16.  Missing value imputation in longitudinal measures of alcohol consumption 
Attrition in longitudinal studies can lead to biased results. The study is motivated by the unexpected observation that alcohol consumption decreased despite of increased availability, which may be due to sample attrition of heavy drinkers. Several imputation methods have been proposed, but rarely compared in longitudinal studies of alcohol consumption. The imputation of consumption level measurements is computationally particularly challenging due to alcohol consumption being a semi-continuous variable (dichotomous drinking status and continuous volume among drinkers), and the non-normality of data in the continuous part. Data come from a longitudinal study in Denmark with four waves (2003–2006) and 1771 individuals at baseline. Five techniques for missing data are compared: Last value carried forward (LVCF) was used as a single, and Hotdeck, Heckman modelling, multivariate imputation by chained equations (MICE), and a Bayesian approach as multiple imputation methods. Predictive mean matching was used to account for non-normality, where instead of imputing regression estimates, “real” observed values from similar cases are imputed. Methods were also compared by means of a simulated dataset. The simulation showed that the Bayesian approach yielded the most unbiased estimates for imputation. The finding of no increase in consumption levels despite a higher availability remained unaltered.
doi:10.1002/mpr.330
PMCID: PMC3088912  PMID: 21556290
panel surveys; missing data; multiple imputation; Bayesian models; alcohol consumption
17.  Combining estimates of interest in prognostic modelling studies after multiple imputation: current practice and guidelines 
Background
Multiple imputation (MI) provides an effective approach to handle missing covariate data within prognostic modelling studies, as it can properly account for the missing data uncertainty. The multiply imputed datasets are each analysed using standard prognostic modelling techniques to obtain the estimates of interest. The estimates from each imputed dataset are then combined into one overall estimate and variance, incorporating both the within and between imputation variability. Rubin's rules for combining these multiply imputed estimates are based on asymptotic theory. The resulting combined estimates may be more accurate if the posterior distribution of the population parameter of interest is better approximated by the normal distribution. However, the normality assumption may not be appropriate for all the parameters of interest when analysing prognostic modelling studies, such as predicted survival probabilities and model performance measures.
Methods
Guidelines for combining the estimates of interest when analysing prognostic modelling studies are provided. A literature review is performed to identify current practice for combining such estimates in prognostic modelling studies.
Results
Methods for combining all reported estimates after MI were not well reported in the current literature. Rubin's rules without applying any transformations were the standard approach used, when any method was stated.
Conclusion
The proposed simple guidelines for combining estimates after MI may lead to a wider and more appropriate use of MI in future prognostic modelling studies.
doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-57
PMCID: PMC2727536  PMID: 19638200
18.  Doubly Robust Nonparametric Multiple Imputation for Ignorable Missing Data 
Statistica Sinica  2012;22:149-172.
Missing data are common in medical and social science studies and often pose a serious challenge in data analysis. Multiple imputation methods are popular and natural tools for handling missing data, replacing each missing value with a set of plausible values that represent the uncertainty about the underlying values. We consider a case of missing at random (MAR) and investigate the estimation of the marginal mean of an outcome variable in the presence of missing values when a set of fully observed covariates is available. We propose a new nonparametric multiple imputation (MI) approach that uses two working models to achieve dimension reduction and define the imputing sets for the missing observations. Compared with existing nonparametric imputation procedures, our approach can better handle covariates of high dimension, and is doubly robust in the sense that the resulting estimator remains consistent if either of the working models is correctly specified. Compared with existing doubly robust methods, our nonparametric MI approach is more robust to the misspecification of both working models; it also avoids the use of inverse-weighting and hence is less sensitive to missing probabilities that are close to 1. We propose a sensitivity analysis for evaluating the validity of the working models, allowing investigators to choose the optimal weights so that the resulting estimator relies either completely or more heavily on the working model that is likely to be correctly specified and achieves improved efficiency. We investigate the asymptotic properties of the proposed estimator, and perform simulation studies to show that the proposed method compares favorably with some existing methods in finite samples. The proposed method is further illustrated using data from a colorectal adenoma study.
PMCID: PMC3280694  PMID: 22347786
Doubly robust; Missing at random; Multiple imputation; Nearest neighbor; Nonparametric imputation; Sensitivity analysis
19.  Dealing with missing data in a multi-question depression scale: a comparison of imputation methods 
Background
Missing data present a challenge to many research projects. The problem is often pronounced in studies utilizing self-report scales, and literature addressing different strategies for dealing with missing data in such circumstances is scarce. The objective of this study was to compare six different imputation techniques for dealing with missing data in the Zung Self-reported Depression scale (SDS).
Methods
1580 participants from a surgical outcomes study completed the SDS. The SDS is a 20 question scale that respondents complete by circling a value of 1 to 4 for each question. The sum of the responses is calculated and respondents are classified as exhibiting depressive symptoms when their total score is over 40. Missing values were simulated by randomly selecting questions whose values were then deleted (a missing completely at random simulation). Additionally, a missing at random and missing not at random simulation were completed. Six imputation methods were then considered; 1) multiple imputation, 2) single regression, 3) individual mean, 4) overall mean, 5) participant's preceding response, and 6) random selection of a value from 1 to 4. For each method, the imputed mean SDS score and standard deviation were compared to the population statistics. The Spearman correlation coefficient, percent misclassified and the Kappa statistic were also calculated.
Results
When 10% of values are missing, all the imputation methods except random selection produce Kappa statistics greater than 0.80 indicating 'near perfect' agreement. MI produces the most valid imputed values with a high Kappa statistic (0.89), although both single regression and individual mean imputation also produced favorable results. As the percent of missing information increased to 30%, or when unbalanced missing data were introduced, MI maintained a high Kappa statistic. The individual mean and single regression method produced Kappas in the 'substantial agreement' range (0.76 and 0.74 respectively).
Conclusion
Multiple imputation is the most accurate method for dealing with missing data in most of the missind data scenarios we assessed for the SDS. Imputing the individual's mean is also an appropriate and simple method for dealing with missing data that may be more interpretable to the majority of medical readers. Researchers should consider conducting methodological assessments such as this one when confronted with missing data. The optimal method should balance validity, ease of interpretability for readers, and analysis expertise of the research team.
doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-57
PMCID: PMC1716168  PMID: 17166270
20.  A review of the reporting and handling of missing data in cohort studies with repeated assessment of exposure measures 
Background
Retaining participants in cohort studies with multiple follow-up waves is difficult. Commonly, researchers are faced with the problem of missing data, which may introduce biased results as well as a loss of statistical power and precision. The STROBE guidelines von Elm et al. (Lancet, 370:1453-1457, 2007); Vandenbroucke et al. (PLoS Med, 4:e297, 2007) and the guidelines proposed by Sterne et al. (BMJ, 338:b2393, 2009) recommend that cohort studies report on the amount of missing data, the reasons for non-participation and non-response, and the method used to handle missing data in the analyses. We have conducted a review of publications from cohort studies in order to document the reporting of missing data for exposure measures and to describe the statistical methods used to account for the missing data.
Methods
A systematic search of English language papers published from January 2000 to December 2009 was carried out in PubMed. Prospective cohort studies with a sample size greater than 1,000 that analysed data using repeated measures of exposure were included.
Results
Among the 82 papers meeting the inclusion criteria, only 35 (43%) reported the amount of missing data according to the suggested guidelines. Sixty-eight papers (83%) described how they dealt with missing data in the analysis. Most of the papers excluded participants with missing data and performed a complete-case analysis (n = 54, 66%). Other papers used more sophisticated methods including multiple imputation (n = 5) or fully Bayesian modeling (n = 1). Methods known to produce biased results were also used, for example, Last Observation Carried Forward (n = 7), the missing indicator method (n = 1), and mean value substitution (n = 3). For the remaining 14 papers, the method used to handle missing data in the analysis was not stated.
Conclusions
This review highlights the inconsistent reporting of missing data in cohort studies and the continuing use of inappropriate methods to handle missing data in the analysis. Epidemiological journals should invoke the STROBE guidelines as a framework for authors so that the amount of missing data and how this was accounted for in the analysis is transparent in the reporting of cohort studies.
doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-96
PMCID: PMC3464662  PMID: 22784200
Longitudinal cohort studies; Missing exposure data; Repeated exposure measurement; Missing data methods; Reporting
21.  Combining Fourier and Lagged k-Nearest Neighbor Imputation for Biomedical Time Series Data 
Most clinical and biomedical data contain missing values. A patient’s record may be split across multiple institutions, devices may fail, and sensors may not be worn at all times. While these missing values are often ignored, this can lead to bias and error when the data are mined. Further, the data are not simply missing at random. Instead the measurement of a variable such as blood glucose may depend on its prior values as well as that of other variables. These dependencies exist across time as well, but current methods have yet to incorporate these temporal relationships as well as multiple types of missingness. To address this, we propose an imputation method (FLk-NN) that incorporates time lagged correlations both within and across variables by combining two imputation methods, based on an extension to k-NN and the Fourier transform. This enables imputation of missing values even when all data at a time point is missing and when there are different types of missingness both within and across variables. In comparison to other approaches on three biological datasets (simulated and actual Type 1 diabetes datasets, and multi-modality neurological ICU monitoring) the proposed method has the highest imputation accuracy. This was true for up to half the data being missing and when consecutive missing values are a significant fraction of the overall time series length.
Graphical Abstracts
doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2015.10.004
PMCID: PMC4755282  PMID: 26477633
missing data; imputation; time series; biomedical data
22.  Recovery of information from multiple imputation: a simulation study 
Background
Multiple imputation is becoming increasingly popular for handling missing data. However, it is often implemented without adequate consideration of whether it offers any advantage over complete case analysis for the research question of interest, or whether potential gains may be offset by bias from a poorly fitting imputation model, particularly as the amount of missing data increases.
Methods
Simulated datasets (n = 1000) drawn from a synthetic population were used to explore information recovery from multiple imputation in estimating the coefficient of a binary exposure variable when various proportions of data (10-90%) were set missing at random in a highly-skewed continuous covariate or in the binary exposure. Imputation was performed using multivariate normal imputation (MVNI), with a simple or zero-skewness log transformation to manage non-normality. Bias, precision, mean-squared error and coverage for a set of regression parameter estimates were compared between multiple imputation and complete case analyses.
Results
For missingness in the continuous covariate, multiple imputation produced less bias and greater precision for the effect of the binary exposure variable, compared with complete case analysis, with larger gains in precision with more missing data. However, even with only moderate missingness, large bias and substantial under-coverage were apparent in estimating the continuous covariate’s effect when skewness was not adequately addressed. For missingness in the binary covariate, all estimates had negligible bias but gains in precision from multiple imputation were minimal, particularly for the coefficient of the binary exposure.
Conclusions
Although multiple imputation can be useful if covariates required for confounding adjustment are missing, benefits are likely to be minimal when data are missing in the exposure variable of interest. Furthermore, when there are large amounts of missingness, multiple imputation can become unreliable and introduce bias not present in a complete case analysis if the imputation model is not appropriate. Epidemiologists dealing with missing data should keep in mind the potential limitations as well as the potential benefits of multiple imputation. Further work is needed to provide clearer guidelines on effective application of this method.
doi:10.1186/1742-7622-9-3
PMCID: PMC3544721  PMID: 22695083
Missing data; Multiple imputation; Fully conditional specification; Multivariate normal imputation; Non-normal data
23.  The rise of multiple imputation: a review of the reporting and implementation of the method in medical research 
Background
Missing data are common in medical research, which can lead to a loss in statistical power and potentially biased results if not handled appropriately. Multiple imputation (MI) is a statistical method, widely adopted in practice, for dealing with missing data. Many academic journals now emphasise the importance of reporting information regarding missing data and proposed guidelines for documenting the application of MI have been published. This review evaluated the reporting of missing data, the application of MI including the details provided regarding the imputation model, and the frequency of sensitivity analyses within the MI framework in medical research articles.
Methods
A systematic review of articles published in the Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine between January 2008 and December 2013 in which MI was implemented was carried out.
Results
We identified 103 papers that used MI, with the number of papers increasing from 11 in 2008 to 26 in 2013. Nearly half of the papers specified the proportion of complete cases or the proportion with missing data by each variable. In the majority of the articles (86%) the imputed variables were specified. Of the 38 papers (37%) that stated the method of imputation, 20 used chained equations, 8 used multivariate normal imputation, and 10 used alternative methods. Very few articles (9%) detailed how they handled non-normally distributed variables during imputation. Thirty-nine papers (38%) stated the variables included in the imputation model. Less than half of the papers (46%) reported the number of imputations, and only two papers compared the distribution of imputed and observed data. Sixty-six papers presented the results from MI as a secondary analysis. Only three articles carried out a sensitivity analysis following MI to assess departures from the missing at random assumption, with details of the sensitivity analyses only provided by one article.
Conclusions
This review outlined deficiencies in the documenting of missing data and the details provided about imputation. Furthermore, only a few articles performed sensitivity analyses following MI even though this is strongly recommended in guidelines. Authors are encouraged to follow the available guidelines and provide information on missing data and the imputation process.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0022-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0022-1
PMCID: PMC4396150  PMID: 25880850
Missing data; Multiple imputation; Sensitivity analysis; Reporting
24.  Effects of Different Missing Data Imputation Techniques on the Performance of Undiagnosed Diabetes Risk Prediction Models in a Mixed-Ancestry Population of South Africa 
PLoS ONE  2015;10(9):e0139210.
Background
Imputation techniques used to handle missing data are based on the principle of replacement. It is widely advocated that multiple imputation is superior to other imputation methods, however studies have suggested that simple methods for filling missing data can be just as accurate as complex methods. The objective of this study was to implement a number of simple and more complex imputation methods, and assess the effect of these techniques on the performance of undiagnosed diabetes risk prediction models during external validation.
Methods
Data from the Cape Town Bellville-South cohort served as the basis for this study. Imputation methods and models were identified via recent systematic reviews. Models’ discrimination was assessed and compared using C-statistic and non-parametric methods, before and after recalibration through simple intercept adjustment.
Results
The study sample consisted of 1256 individuals, of whom 173 were excluded due to previously diagnosed diabetes. Of the final 1083 individuals, 329 (30.4%) had missing data. Family history had the highest proportion of missing data (25%). Imputation of the outcome, undiagnosed diabetes, was highest in stochastic regression imputation (163 individuals). Overall, deletion resulted in the lowest model performances while simple imputation yielded the highest C-statistic for the Cambridge Diabetes Risk model, Kuwaiti Risk model, Omani Diabetes Risk model and Rotterdam Predictive model. Multiple imputation only yielded the highest C-statistic for the Rotterdam Predictive model, which were matched by simpler imputation methods.
Conclusions
Deletion was confirmed as a poor technique for handling missing data. However, despite the emphasized disadvantages of simpler imputation methods, this study showed that implementing these methods results in similar predictive utility for undiagnosed diabetes when compared to multiple imputation.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139210
PMCID: PMC4583496  PMID: 26406594
25.  Identification of Gene-Gene Interactions in the Presence of Missing Data using the Multifactor Dimensionality Reduction Method 
Genetic epidemiology  2009;33(7):646-656.
Gene-gene interaction is believed to play an important role in understanding complex traits. Multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) was proposed by Ritchie, et al. [2001] to identify multiple loci that simultaneously affect disease susceptibility. Although the MDR method has been widely used to detect gene-gene interactions, few studies have been reported on MDR analysis when there are missing data. Currently, there are four approaches available in MDR analysis to handle missing data. The first approach uses only complete observations that have no missing data, which can cause a severe loss of data. The second approach is to treat missing values as an additional genotype category, but interpretation of the results may then be not clear and the conclusions may be misleading. Furthermore, it performs poorly when the missing rates are unbalanced between the case and control groups. The third approach is a simple imputation method that imputes missing genotypes as the most frequent genotype, which also may produce biased results. The fourth approach, Available, uses all data available for the given loci, to increase power. In any real data analysis, it is not clear which MDR approach one should use when there are missing data. In this paper, we consider a new EM Impute approach, to handle missing data more appropriately. Through simulation studies, we compared the performance of the proposed EM Impute approach with the current approaches. Our results showed that Available and EM Impute approaches perform better than the three other current approaches in terms of power and precision.
doi:10.1002/gepi.20416
PMCID: PMC2766017  PMID: 19241410
Gene-gene interaction; Multifactor Dimensionality Reduction; Missing genotypes; Association study

Results 1-25 (1771540)