↓ Skip to main content

Missing value imputation in high-dimensional phenomic data: imputable or not, and how?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
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
Missing value imputation in high-dimensional phenomic data: imputable or not, and how?
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12859-014-0346-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Serena G Liao, Yan Lin, Dongwan D Kang, Divay Chandra, Jessica Bon, Naftali Kaminski, Frank C Sciurba, George C Tseng

Abstract

BackgroundIn modern biomedical research of complex diseases, a large number of demographic and clinical variables, herein called phenomic data, are often collected and missing values (MVs) are inevitable in the data collection process. Since many downstream statistical and bioinformatics methods require complete data matrix, imputation is a common and practical solution. In high-throughput experiments such as microarray experiments, continuous intensities are measured and many mature missing value imputation methods have been developed and widely applied. Numerous methods for missing data imputation of microarray data have been developed. Large phenomic data, however, contain continuous, nominal, binary and ordinal data types, which void application of most methods. Though several methods have been developed in the past few years, not a single complete guideline is proposed with respect to phenomic missing data imputation.ResultsIn this paper, we investigated existing imputation methods for phenomic data, proposed a self-training selection (STS) scheme to select the best imputation method and provide a practical guideline for general applications. We introduced a novel concept of ¿imputability measure¿ (IM) to identify missing values that are fundamentally inadequate to impute. In addition, we also developed four variations of K-nearest-neighbor (KNN) methods and compared with two existing methods, multivariate imputation by chained equations (MICE) and missForest. The four variations are imputation by variables (KNN-V), by subjects (KNN-S), their weighted hybrid (KNN-H) and an adaptively weighted hybrid (KNN-A). We performed simulations and applied different imputation methods and the STS scheme to three lung disease phenomic datasets to evaluate the methods. An R package ¿phenomeImpute¿ is made publicly available.ConclusionsSimulations and applications to real datasets showed that MICE often did not perform well; KNN-A, KNN-H and random forest were among the top performers although no method universally performed the best. Imputation of missing values with low imputability measures increased imputation errors greatly and could potentially deteriorate downstream analyses. The STS scheme was accurate in selecting the optimal method by evaluating methods in a second layer of missingness simulation. All source files for the simulation and the real data analyses are available on the author¿s publication website.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 121 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 29%
Researcher 23 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Student > Master 6 5%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 25 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 20 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 11%
Computer Science 13 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 31 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 November 2016.
All research outputs
#13,922,782
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,471
of 7,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,154
of 262,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#76
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 262,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.