↓ Skip to main content

Tuning multiple imputation by predictive mean matching and local residual draws

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
352 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
277 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Tuning multiple imputation by predictive mean matching and local residual draws
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-14-75
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim P Morris, Ian R White, Patrick Royston

Abstract

Multiple imputation is a commonly used method for handling incomplete covariates as it can provide valid inference when data are missing at random. This depends on being able to correctly specify the parametric model used to impute missing values, which may be difficult in many realistic settings. Imputation by predictive mean matching (PMM) borrows an observed value from a donor with a similar predictive mean; imputation by local residual draws (LRD) instead borrows the donor's residual. Both methods relax some assumptions of parametric imputation, promising greater robustness when the imputation model is misspecified.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 277 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Vietnam 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 269 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 23%
Researcher 40 14%
Student > Master 33 12%
Student > Bachelor 18 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 44 16%
Unknown 62 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 19%
Social Sciences 23 8%
Mathematics 22 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 7%
Psychology 17 6%
Other 64 23%
Unknown 78 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 February 2023.
All research outputs
#6,194,427
of 25,292,378 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#862
of 2,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,514
of 234,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#10
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,378 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,257 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 234,809 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.