Literature DB >> 10978924

Usefulness of imputation for the analysis of incomplete otoneurologic data.

J Laurikkala1, E Kentala, M Juhola, I Pyykkö, S Lammi.   

Abstract

The usefulness of imputation in the treatment of missing values of an otoneurologic database for the discriminant analysis was evaluated on the basis of the agreement of imputed values and the analysis results. The data consisted of six patient groups with vertigo (N=564). There were 38 variables and 11% of the data was missing. Missing values were filled in with the means, regression and Expectation-Maximisation (EM) imputation methods and a random imputation method provided the baseline results. Means, regression and EM methods agreed on 41-42% of the imputed missing values. The level of agreement between these and the random method was 20-22%. Despite the moderate agreement between the means, regression and EM methods, the discriminant functions were similar and accurate (prediction accuracy 83-99%). The discriminant functions obtained from the randomly imputed data were also accurate having prediction accuracy 88-97%. Imputation seems to be a useful method for treating the missing data in this database. However, a lot of data was missing in otoneurologic tests, which are likely to be of less importance in the diagnosis of vertiginous patients. Consequently, the disagreement of the methods did not affect clearly the discriminant analysis, and, therefore, future research requires more complete data and advanced imputation methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10978924     DOI: 10.1016/s1386-5056(00)00090-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Med Inform        ISSN: 1386-5056            Impact factor:   4.046


  7 in total

1.  Classification of otoneurological cases according to Bayesian probabilistic models.

Authors:  Katja Miettinen; Martti Juhola
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  Predictive capability of historical data for diagnosis of dizziness.

Authors:  Jeff G Zhao; Jay F Piccirillo; Edward L Spitznagel; Dorina Kallogjeri; Joel A Goebel
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Trends in worker hearing loss by industry sector, 1981-2010.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Masterson; James A Deddens; Christa L Themann; Stephen Bertke; Geoffrey M Calvert
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2015-02-17       Impact factor: 2.214

4.  Prevalence of hearing loss among noise-exposed workers within the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting sector, 2003-2012.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Masterson; Christa L Themann; Geoffrey M Calvert
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2017-11-20       Impact factor: 2.214

5.  Do hearing protectors protect hearing?

Authors:  Matthew R Groenewold; Elizabeth A Masterson; Christa L Themann; Rickie R Davis
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 2.214

6.  Prevalence of workers with shifts in hearing by industry: a comparison of OSHA and NIOSH Hearing Shift Criteria.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Masterson; Marie Haring Sweeney; James A Deddens; Christa L Themann; David K Wall
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.162

7.  Prevalence of hearing loss among noise-exposed workers within the Mining and Oil and Gas Extraction sectors, 2006-2015.

Authors:  Sean M Lawson; Elizabeth A Masterson; Amanda S Azman
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2019-07-26       Impact factor: 3.079

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.