Practical strategies for handling breakdown of multiple imputation procedures.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nguyen CD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8017730 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Practical strategies for handling breakdown of multiple imputation procedures.
Nguyen Cattram D CD Carlin John B JB Lee Katherine J KJ
Emerging themes in epidemiology 20210401 1
Multiple imputation is a recommended method for handling incomplete data problems. One of the barriers to its successful use is the breakdown of the multiple imputation procedure, often due to numerical problems with the algorithms used within the imputation process. These problems frequently occur when imputation models contain large numbers of variables, especially with the popular approach of multivariate imputation by chained equations. This paper describes common causes of failure of the im ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Missing data due to non-wear are common in accelerometer studies measuring physical activity and sedentary behavior. Accelerometer output are high-dimensional time-series data that are episodic and often highly skewed, presenting unique challenges for handling missing data. Common methods for missing accelerometry either are ad-hoc, require restrictive parametric assumptions, or do not appropriately impute bouts. This study developed a flexible hot deck multiple imputation (MI; i.e., "replacing" missing data with observed values) procedure to handle missing accelerometry. For each missing segment of accelerometry, "donor pools" contained observed segments from either the same or different participants, and 10 imputed segments were randomly drawn from the donor pool according to selection weights, where the donor pool and selection weight depended on variables associated with non-wear and/or accelerometer-based measures. A simulation study of 2,550 women compared hot deck MI to two standard methods in the field: available case (AC) analysis (i.e., analyzing all observed accelerometry with no restriction on wear time or number of days) and complete case (CC) analysis (i.e., analyzing only participants that wore the accelerometer for ≥10 hours for 4-7 days). This was repeated using accelerometry from the entire 24-hour day and daytime (10am- 8pm) only, and data were missing at random. For the entire 24-hour day, MI produced less bias and better 95% confidence interval (CI) coverage than AC and CC. For the daytime only, MI produced less bias and better 95% CI coverage than AC; CC produced similar bias and 95% CI coverage, but longer 95% CIs than MI.
| S-EPMC6707749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Analysis of matched case-control studies is often complicated by missing data on covariates. Analysis can be restricted to individuals with complete data, but this is inefficient and may be biased. Multiple imputation (MI) is an efficient and flexible alternative. We describe two MI approaches. The first uses a model for the data on an individual and includes matching variables; the second uses a model for the data on a whole matched set and avoids the need to model the matching variables. Within each approach, we consider three methods: full-conditional specification (FCS), joint model MI using a normal model, and joint model MI using a latent normal model. We show that FCS MI is asymptotically equivalent to joint model MI using a restricted general location model that is compatible with the conditional logistic regression analysis model. The normal and latent normal imputation models are not compatible with this analysis model. All methods allow for multiple partially-observed covariates, non-monotone missingness, and multiple controls per case. They can be easily applied in standard statistical software and valid variance estimates obtained using Rubin's Rules. We compare the methods in a simulation study. The approach of including the matching variables is most efficient. Within each approach, the FCS MI method generally yields the least-biased odds ratio estimates, but normal or latent normal joint model MI is sometimes more efficient. All methods have good confidence interval coverage. Data on colorectal cancer and fibre intake from the EPIC-Norfolk study are used to illustrate the methods, in particular showing how efficiency is gained relative to just using individuals with complete data.
| S-EPMC4847641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to examine missing data in FFQ and to assess the effects on estimating dietary intake by comparing between multiple imputation and zero imputation.DesignWe used data from the Okazaki Japan Multi-Institutional Collaborative Cohort (J-MICC) study. A self-administered questionnaire including an FFQ was implemented at baseline (FFQ1) and 5-year follow-up (FFQ2). Missing values in FFQ2 were replaced by corresponding FFQ1 values, multiple imputation and zero imputation.SettingA methodological sub-study of the Okazaki J-MICC study.ParticipantsOf a total of 7585 men and women aged 35-79 years at baseline, we analysed data for 5120 participants who answered all items in FFQ1 and at least 50% of items in FFQ2.ResultsAmong 5120 participants, the proportion of missing data was 3·7%. The increasing number of missing food items in FFQ2 varied with personal characteristics. Missing food items not eaten often in FFQ2 were likely to represent zero intake in FFQ1. Most food items showed that the observed proportion of zero intake was likely to be similar to the probability that the missing value is zero intake. Compared with FFQ1 values, multiple imputation had smaller differences of total energy and nutrient estimates, except for alcohol, than zero imputation.ConclusionsOur results indicate that missing values due to zero intake, namely missing not at random, in FFQ can be predicted reasonably well from observed data. Multiple imputation performed better than zero imputation for most nutrients and may be applied to FFQ data when missing is low.
| S-EPMC10260937 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Three-level data arising from repeated measures on individuals clustered within higher-level units are common in medical research. A complexity arises when individuals change clusters over time, resulting in a cross-classified data structure. Missing values in these studies are commonly handled via multiple imputation (MI). If the three-level, cross-classified structure is modeled in the analysis, it also needs to be accommodated in the imputation model to ensure valid results. While incomplete three-level data can be handled using various approaches within MI, the performance of these in the cross-classified data setting remains unclear. We conducted simulations under a range of scenarios to compare these approaches in the context of an acute-effects cross-classified random effects substantive model, which models the time-varying cluster membership via simple additive random effects. The simulation study was based on a case study in a longitudinal cohort of students clustered within schools. We evaluated methods that ignore the time-varying cluster memberships by taking the first or most common cluster for each individual; pragmatic extensions of single- and two-level MI approaches within the joint modeling (JM) and the fully conditional specification (FCS) frameworks, using dummy indicators (DI) and/or imputing repeated measures in wide format to account for the cross-classified structure; and a three-level FCS MI approach developed specifically for cross-classified data. Results indicated that the FCS implementations performed well in terms of bias and precision while JM approaches performed poorly. Under both frameworks approaches using the DI extension should be used with caution in the presence of sparse data.
| S-EPMC9540355 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multiple imputation (MI) is a popular method for handling missing data. Auxiliary variables can be added to the imputation model(s) to improve MI estimates. However, the choice of which auxiliary variables to include is not always straightforward. Several data-driven auxiliary variable selection strategies have been proposed, but there has been limited evaluation of their performance. Using a simulation study we evaluated the performance of eight auxiliary variable selection strategies: (1, 2) two versions of selection based on correlations in the observed data; (3) selection using hypothesis tests of the "missing completely at random" assumption; (4) replacing auxiliary variables with their principal components; (5, 6) forward and forward stepwise selection; (7) forward selection based on the estimated fraction of missing information; and (8) selection via the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). A complete case analysis and an MI analysis using all auxiliary variables (the "full model") were included for comparison. We also applied all strategies to a motivating case study. The full model outperformed all auxiliary variable selection strategies in the simulation study, with the LASSO strategy the best performing auxiliary variable selection strategy overall. All MI analysis strategies that we were able to apply to the case study led to similar estimates, although computational time was substantially reduced when variable selection was employed. This study provides further support for adopting an inclusive auxiliary variable strategy where possible. Auxiliary variable selection using the LASSO may be a promising alternative when the full model fails or is too burdensome.
| S-EPMC7615727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Imputation-based association methods provide a powerful framework for testing untyped variants for association with phenotypes and for combining results from multiple studies that use different genotyping platforms. Here, we consider several issues that arise when applying these methods in practice, including: (i) factors affecting imputation accuracy, including choice of reference panel; (ii) the effects of imputation accuracy on power to detect associations; (iii) the relative merits of Bayesian and frequentist approaches to testing imputed genotypes for association with phenotype; and (iv) how to quickly and accurately compute Bayes factors for testing imputed SNPs. We find that imputation-based methods can be robust to imputation accuracy and can improve power to detect associations, even when average imputation accuracy is poor. We explain how ranking SNPs for association by a standard likelihood ratio test gives the same results as a Bayesian procedure that uses an unnatural prior assumption--specifically, that difficult-to-impute SNPs tend to have larger effects--and assess the power gained from using a Bayesian approach that does not make this assumption. Within the Bayesian framework, we find that good approximations to a full analysis can be achieved by simply replacing unknown genotypes with a point estimate--their posterior mean. This approximation considerably reduces computational expense compared with published sampling-based approaches, and the methods we present are practical on a genome-wide scale with very modest computational resources (e.g., a single desktop computer). The approximation also facilitates combining information across studies, using only summary data for each SNP. Methods discussed here are implemented in the software package BIMBAM, which is available from http://stephenslab.uchicago.edu/software.html.
| S-EPMC2585794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In patient follow-up studies, events of interest may take place between periodic clinical assessments and so the exact time of onset is not observed. Such events are known as "bounded" or "interval-censored." Methods for handling such events can be categorized as either (i) applying multiple imputation (MI) strategies or (ii) taking a full likelihood-based (LB) approach. We focused on MI strategies, rather than LB methods, because of their flexibility. We evaluated MI strategies for bounded event times in a competing risks analysis, examining the extent to which interval boundaries, features of the data distribution and substantive analysis model are accounted for in the imputation model. Candidate imputation models were predictive mean matching (PMM); log-normal regression with postimputation back-transformation; normal regression with and without restrictions on the imputed values and Delord and Genin's method based on sampling from the cumulative incidence function. We used a simulation study to compare MI methods and one LB method when data were missing at random and missing not at random, also varying the proportion of missing data, and then applied the methods to a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation dataset. We found that cumulative incidence and median event time estimation were sensitive to model misspecification. In a competing risks analysis, we found that it is more important to account for features of the data distribution than to restrict imputed values based on interval boundaries or to ensure compatibility with the substantive analysis by sampling from the cumulative incidence function. We recommend MI by type 1 PMM.
| S-EPMC8611803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In clinical studies, multi-state model (MSM) analysis is often used to describe the sequence of events that patients experience, enabling better understanding of disease progression. A complicating factor in many MSM studies is that the exact event times may not be known. Motivated by a real dataset of patients who received stem cell transplants, we considered the setting in which some event times were exactly observed and some were missing. In our setting, there was little information about the time intervals in which the missing event times occurred and missingness depended on the event type, given the analysis model covariates. These additional challenges limited the usefulness of some missing data methods (maximum likelihood, complete case analysis, and inverse probability weighting). We show that multiple imputation (MI) of event times can perform well in this setting. MI is a flexible method that can be used with any complete data analysis model. Through an extensive simulation study, we show that MI by predictive mean matching (PMM), in which sampling is from a set of observed times without reliance on a specific parametric distribution, has little bias when event times are missing at random, conditional on the observed data. Applying PMM separately for each sub-group of patients with a different pathway through the MSM tends to further reduce bias and improve precision. We recommend MI using PMM methods when performing MSM analysis with Markov models and partially observed event times.
| S-EPMC7616776 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionObservational studies in health-related research often aim to answer causal questions. Missing data are common in these studies and often occur in multiple variables, such as the exposure, outcome and/or variables used to control for confounding. The standard classification of missing data as missing completely at random, missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random does not allow for a clear assessment of missingness assumptions when missingness arises in more than one variable. This presents challenges for selecting an analytic approach and determining when a sensitivity analysis under plausible alternative missing data assumptions is required. This is particularly pertinent with multiple imputation (MI), which is often justified by assuming data are MAR. The objective of this scoping review is to examine the use of MI in observational studies that address causal questions, with a focus on if and how (a) missingness assumptions are expressed and assessed, (b) missingness assumptions are used to justify the choice of a complete case analysis and/or MI for handling missing data and (c) sensitivity analyses under alternative plausible assumptions about the missingness mechanism are conducted.Methods and analysisWe will review observational studies that aim to answer causal questions and use MI, published between January 2019 and December 2021 in five top general epidemiology journals. Studies will be identified using a full text search for the term 'multiple imputation' and then assessed for eligibility. Information extracted will include details about the study characteristics, missing data, missingness assumptions and MI implementation. Data will be summarised using descriptive statistics.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this review because data will be collected only from published studies. The results will be disseminated through a peer reviewed publication and conference presentations.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered on figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20010497.v1).
| S-EPMC9896184 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn case-cohort studies a random subcohort is selected from the inception cohort and acts as the sample of controls for several outcome investigations. Analysis is conducted using only the cases and the subcohort, with inverse probability weighting (IPW) used to account for the unequal sampling probabilities resulting from the study design. Like all epidemiological studies, case-cohort studies are susceptible to missing data. Multiple imputation (MI) has become increasingly popular for addressing missing data in epidemiological studies. It is currently unclear how best to incorporate the weights from a case-cohort analysis in MI procedures used to address missing covariate data.MethodA simulation study was conducted with missingness in two covariates, motivated by a case study within the Barwon Infant Study. MI methods considered were: using the outcome, a proxy for weights in the simple case-cohort design considered, as a predictor in the imputation model, with and without exposure and covariate interactions; imputing separately within each weight category; and using a weighted imputation model. These methods were compared to a complete case analysis (CCA) within the context of a standard IPW analysis model estimating either the risk or odds ratio. The strength of associations, missing data mechanism, proportion of observations with incomplete covariate data, and subcohort selection probability varied across the simulation scenarios. Methods were also applied to the case study.ResultsThere was similar performance in terms of relative bias and precision with all MI methods across the scenarios considered, with expected improvements compared with the CCA. Slight underestimation of the standard error was seen throughout but the nominal level of coverage (95%) was generally achieved. All MI methods showed a similar increase in precision as the subcohort selection probability increased, irrespective of the scenario. A similar pattern of results was seen in the case study.ConclusionsHow weights were incorporated into the imputation model had minimal effect on the performance of MI; this may be due to case-cohort studies only having two weight categories. In this context, inclusion of the outcome in the imputation model was sufficient to account for the unequal sampling probabilities in the analysis model.
| S-EPMC8978363 | biostudies-literature