Rounding Strategies for Multiply Imputed Binary Data

Multiple imputation (MI) has emerged in the last two decades as a frequently used approach in dealing with incomplete data. Gaussian and log‐linear imputation models are fairly straightforward to implement for continuous and discrete data, respectively. However, in missing data settings that include a mix of continuous and discrete variables, the lack of flexible models for the joint distribution of different types of variables can make the specification of the imputation model a daunting task. The widespread availability of software packages that are capable of carrying out MI under the assumption of joint multivariate normality allows applied researchers to address this complication pragmatically by treating the discrete variables as continuous for imputation purposes and subsequently rounding the imputed values to the nearest observed category. In this article, we compare several rounding rules for binary variables based on simulated longitudinal data sets that have been used to illustrate other missing‐data techniques. Using a combination of conditional and marginal data generation mechanisms and imputation models, we study the statistical properties of multiple‐imputation‐based estimates for various population quantities under different rounding rules from bias and coverage standpoints. We conclude that a good rule should be driven by borrowing information from other variables in the system rather than relying on the marginal characteristics and should be relatively insensitive to imputation model specifications that may potentially be incompatible with the observed data. We also urge researchers to consider the applied context and specific nature of the problem, to avoid uncritical and possibly inappropriate use of rounding in imputation models.     

Comparison of Results from Different Imputation Techniques for Missing Data from an Anti-Obesity Drug Trial

Background

In randomised trials of medical interventions, the most reliable analysis follows the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. However, the ITT analysis requires that missing outcome data have to be imputed. Different imputation techniques may give different results and some may lead to bias. In anti-obesity drug trials, many data are usually missing, and the most used imputation method is last observation carried forward (LOCF). LOCF is generally considered conservative, but there are more reliable methods such as multiple imputation (MI).

Objectives

To compare four different methods of handling missing data in a 60-week placebo controlled anti-obesity drug trial on topiramate.

Methods

We compared an analysis of complete cases with datasets where missing body weight measurements had been replaced using three different imputation methods: LOCF, baseline carried forward (BOCF) and MI.

Results

561 participants were randomised. Compared to placebo, there was a significantly greater weight loss with topiramate in all analyses: 9.5 kg (SE 1.17) in the complete case analysis (N = 86), 6.8 kg (SE 0.66) using LOCF (N = 561), 6.4 kg (SE 0.90) using MI (N = 561) and 1.5 kg (SE 0.28) using BOCF (N = 561).

Conclusions

The different imputation methods gave very different results. Contrary to widely stated claims, LOCF did not produce a conservative (i.e., lower) efficacy estimate compared to MI. Also, LOCF had a lower SE than MI.     

Correcting bias due to missing stage data in the non-parametric estimation of stage-specific net survival for colorectal cancer using multiple imputation

BackgroundPopulation-based net survival by tumour stage at diagnosis is a key measure in cancer surveillance. Unfortunately, data on tumour stage are often missing for a non-negligible proportion of patients and the mechanism giving rise to the missingness is usually anything but completely at random. In this setting, restricting analysis to the subset of complete records gives typically biased results. Multiple imputation is a promising practical approach to the issues raised by the missing data, but its use in conjunction with the Pohar-Perme method for estimating net survival has not been formally evaluated.MethodsWe performed a resampling study using colorectal cancer population-based registry data to evaluate the ability of multiple imputation, used along with the Pohar-Perme method, to deliver unbiased estimates of stage-specific net survival and recover missing stage information. We created 1000 independent data sets, each containing 5000 patients. Stage data were then made missing at random under two scenarios (30% and 50% missingness).ResultsComplete records analysis showed substantial bias and poor confidence interval coverage. Across both scenarios our multiple imputation strategy virtually eliminated the bias and greatly improved confidence interval coverage.ConclusionsIn the presence of missing stage data complete records analysis often gives severely biased results. We showed that combining multiple imputation with the Pohar-Perme estimator provides a valid practical approach for the estimation of stage-specific colorectal cancer net survival. As usual, when the percentage of missing data is high the results should be interpreted cautiously and sensitivity analyses are recommended.     

Multiple imputation methods for handling incomplete longitudinal and clustered data where the target analysis is a linear mixed effects model

Multiple imputation (MI) is increasingly popular for handling multivariate missing data. Two general approaches are available in standard computer packages: MI based on the posterior distribution of incomplete variables under a multivariate (joint) model, and fully conditional specification (FCS), which imputes missing values using univariate conditional distributions for each incomplete variable given all the others, cycling iteratively through the univariate imputation models. In the context of longitudinal or clustered data, it is not clear whether these approaches result in consistent estimates of regression coefficient and variance component parameters when the analysis model of interest is a linear mixed effects model (LMM) that includes both random intercepts and slopes with either covariates or both covariates and outcome contain missing information. In the current paper, we compared the performance of seven different MI methods for handling missing values in longitudinal and clustered data in the context of fitting LMMs with both random intercepts and slopes. We study the theoretical compatibility between specific imputation models fitted under each of these approaches and the LMM, and also conduct simulation studies in both the longitudinal and clustered data settings. Simulations were motivated by analyses of the association between body mass index (BMI) and quality of life (QoL) in the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). Our findings showed that the relative performance of MI methods vary according to whether the incomplete covariate has fixed or random effects and whether there is missingnesss in the outcome variable. We showed that compatible imputation and analysis models resulted in consistent estimation of both regression parameters and variance components via simulation. We illustrate our findings with the analysis of LSAC data.     

A Model for Adjusting for Nonignorable Verification Bias in Estimation of the ROC Curve and Its Area with Likelihood‐Based Approach

Summary In estimation of the ROC curve, when the true disease status is subject to nonignorable missingness, the observed likelihood involves the missing mechanism given by a selection model. In this article, we proposed a likelihood‐based approach to estimate the ROC curve and the area under the ROC curve when the verification bias is nonignorable. We specified a parametric disease model in order to make the nonignorable selection model identifiable. With the estimated verification and disease probabilities, we constructed four types of empirical estimates of the ROC curve and its area based on imputation and reweighting methods. In practice, a reasonably large sample size is required to estimate the nonignorable selection model in our settings. Simulation studies showed that all four estimators of ROC area performed well, and imputation estimators were generally more efficient than the other estimators proposed. We applied the proposed method to a data set from research in Alzheimer's disease.     

Smoothed empirical likelihood inference for ROC curve in the presence of missing biomarker values

This paper considers statistical inference for the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve in the presence of missing biomarker values by utilizing estimating equations (EEs) together with smoothed empirical likelihood (SEL). Three approaches are developed to estimate ROC curve and construct its SEL-based confidence intervals based on the kernel-assisted EE imputation, multiple imputation, and hybrid imputation combining the inverse probability weighted imputation and multiple imputation. Under some regularity conditions, we show asymptotic properties of the proposed maximum SEL estimators for ROC curve. Simulation studies are conducted to investigate the performance of the proposed SEL approaches. An example is illustrated by the proposed methodologies. Empirical results show that the hybrid imputation method behaves better than the kernel-assisted and multiple imputation methods, and the proposed three SEL methods outperform existing nonparametric method.     

A simulation-based marginal method for longitudinal data with dropout and mismeasured covariates

Longitudinal data often contain missing observations and error-prone covariates. Extensive attention has been directed to analysis methods to adjust for the bias induced by missing observations. There is relatively little work on investigating the effects of covariate measurement error on estimation of the response parameters, especially on simultaneously accounting for the biases induced by both missing values and mismeasured covariates. It is not clear what the impact of ignoring measurement error is when analyzing longitudinal data with both missing observations and error-prone covariates. In this article, we study the effects of covariate measurement error on estimation of the response parameters for longitudinal studies. We develop an inference method that adjusts for the biases induced by measurement error as well as by missingness. The proposed method does not require the full specification of the distribution of the response vector but only requires modeling its mean and variance structures. Furthermore, the proposed method employs the so-called functional modeling strategy to handle the covariate process, with the distribution of covariates left unspecified. These features, plus the simplicity of implementation, make the proposed method very attractive. In this paper, we establish the asymptotic properties for the resulting estimators. With the proposed method, we conduct sensitivity analyses on a cohort data set arising from the Framingham Heart Study. Simulation studies are carried out to evaluate the impact of ignoring covariate measurement error and to assess the performance of the proposed method.     

Performance of the marginal structural models under various scenarios of incomplete marker's values: A simulation study

Marginal structural models (MSMs) have been proposed for estimating a treatment's effect, in the presence of time‐dependent confounding. We aimed to evaluate the performance of the Cox MSM in the presence of missing data and to explore methods to adjust for missingness. We simulated data with a continuous time‐dependent confounder and a binary treatment. We explored two classes of missing data: (i) missed visits, which resemble clinical cohort studies; (ii) missing confounder's values, which correspond to interval cohort studies. Missing data were generated under various mechanisms. In the first class, the source of the bias was the extreme treatment weights. Truncation or normalization improved estimation. Therefore, particular attention must be paid to the distribution of weights, and truncation or normalization should be applied if extreme weights are noticed. In the second case, bias was due to the misspecification of the treatment model. Last observation carried forward (LOCF), multiple imputation (MI), and inverse probability of missingness weighting (IPMW) were used to correct for the missingness. We found that alternatives, especially the IPMW method, perform better than the classic LOCF method. Nevertheless, in situations with high marker's variance and rarely recorded measurements none of the examined method adequately corrected the bias.     

Gaussian mixture clustering and imputation of microarray data

MOTIVATION: In microarray experiments, missing entries arise from blemishes on the chips. In large-scale studies, virtually every chip contains some missing entries and more than 90% of the genes are affected. Many analysis methods require a full set of data. Either those genes with missing entries are excluded, or the missing entries are filled with estimates prior to the analyses. This study compares methods of missing value estimation. RESULTS: Two evaluation metrics of imputation accuracy are employed. First, the root mean squared error measures the difference between the true values and the imputed values. Second, the number of mis-clustered genes measures the difference between clustering with true values and that with imputed values; it examines the bias introduced by imputation to clustering. The Gaussian mixture clustering with model averaging imputation is superior to all other imputation methods, according to both evaluation metrics, on both time-series (correlated) and non-time series (uncorrelated) data sets.     

Adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis via inverse probability weighting using clinical trial registries

Publication bias is a major concern in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Various sensitivity analysis or bias-correction methods have been developed based on selection models, and they have some advantages over the widely used trim-and-fill bias-correction method. However, likelihood methods based on selection models may have difficulty in obtaining precise estimates and reasonable confidence intervals, or require a rather complicated sensitivity analysis process. Herein, we develop a simple publication bias adjustment method by utilizing the information on conducted but still unpublished trials from clinical trial registries. We introduce an estimating equation for parameter estimation in the selection function by regarding the publication bias issue as a missing data problem under the missing not at random assumption. With the estimated selection function, we introduce the inverse probability weighting (IPW) method to estimate the overall mean across studies. Furthermore, the IPW versions of heterogeneity measures such as the between-study variance and the I² measure are proposed. We propose methods to construct confidence intervals based on asymptotic normal approximation as well as on parametric bootstrap. Through numerical experiments, we observed that the estimators successfully eliminated bias, and the confidence intervals had empirical coverage probabilities close to the nominal level. On the other hand, the confidence interval based on asymptotic normal approximation is much wider in some scenarios than the bootstrap confidence interval. Therefore, the latter is recommended for practical use.     

A nonparametric procedure for the two-factor mixed model with missing data

We develop a nonparametric imputation technique to test for the treatment effects in a nonparametric two-factor mixed model with incomplete data. Within each block, an arbitrary covariance structure of the repeated measurements is assumed without the explicit parametrization of the joint multivariate distribution. The number of repeated measurements is uniformly bounded whereas the number of blocks tends to infinity. The essential idea of the nonparametric imputation is to replace the unknown indicator functions of pairwise comparisons by the corresponding empirical distribution functions. The proposed nonparametric imputation method holds valid under the missing completely at random (MCAR) mechanism. We apply the nonparametric imputation on Brunner and Dette's method for the nonparametric two-factor mixed model and this extension results in a weighted partial rank transform statistic. Asymptotic relative efficiency of the nonparametric imputation method with the complete data versus the incomplete data is derived to quantify the efficiency loss due to the missing data. Monte Carlo simulation studies are conducted to demonstrate the validity and power of the proposed method in comparison with other existing methods. A migraine severity score data set is analyzed to demonstrate the application of the proposed method in the analysis of missing data.     

Model selection of generalized estimating equations with multiply imputed longitudinal data

Longitudinal data often encounter missingness with monotone and/or intermittent missing patterns. Multiple imputation (MI) has been popularly employed for analysis of missing longitudinal data. In particular, the MI‐GEE method has been proposed for inference of generalized estimating equations (GEE) when missing data are imputed via MI. However, little is known about how to perform model selection with multiply imputed longitudinal data. In this work, we extend the existing GEE model selection criteria, including the “quasi‐likelihood under the independence model criterion” (QIC) and the “missing longitudinal information criterion” (MLIC), to accommodate multiple imputed datasets for selection of the MI‐GEE mean model. According to real data analyses from a schizophrenia study and an AIDS study, as well as simulations under nonmonotone missingness with moderate proportion of missing observations, we conclude that: (i) more than a few imputed datasets are required for stable and reliable model selection in MI‐GEE analysis; (ii) the MI‐based GEE model selection methods with a suitable number of imputations generally perform well, while the naive application of existing model selection methods by simply ignoring missing observations may lead to very poor performance; (iii) the model selection criteria based on improper (frequentist) multiple imputation generally performs better than their analogies based on proper (Bayesian) multiple imputation.     

Empirical Likelihood Semiparametric Regression Analysis for Longitudinal Data

A semiparametric regression model for longitudinal data is considered.The empirical likelihood method is used to estimate the regressioncoefficients and the baseline function, and to construct confidenceregions and intervals. It is proved that the maximum empiricallikelihood estimator of the regression coefficients achievesasymptotic efficiency and the estimator of the baseline functionattains asymptotic normality when a bias correction is made.Two calibrated empirical likelihood approaches to inferencefor the baseline function are developed. We propose a groupwiseempirical likelihood procedure to handle the inter-series dependencefor the longitudinal semiparametric regression model, and employbias correction to construct the empirical likelihood ratiofunctions for the parameters of interest. This leads us to provea nonparametric version of Wilks' theorem. Compared with methodsbased on normal approximations, the empirical likelihood doesnot require consistent estimators for the asymptotic varianceand bias. A simulation compares the empirical likelihood andnormal-based methods in terms of coverage accuracies and averageareas/lengths of confidence regions/intervals.     

DNA microarray data imputation and significance analysis of differential expression

MOTIVATION: Significance analysis of differential expression in DNA microarray data is an important task. Much of the current research is focused on developing improved tests and software tools. The task is difficult not only owing to the high dimensionality of the data (number of genes), but also because of the often non-negligible presence of missing values. There is thus a great need to reliably impute these missing values prior to the statistical analyses. Many imputation methods have been developed for DNA microarray data, but their impact on statistical analyses has not been well studied. In this work we examine how missing values and their imputation affect significance analysis of differential expression. RESULTS: We develop a new imputation method (LinCmb) that is superior to the widely used methods in terms of normalized root mean squared error. Its estimates are the convex combinations of the estimates of existing methods. We find that LinCmb adapts to the structure of the data: If the data are heterogeneous or if there are few missing values, LinCmb puts more weight on local imputation methods; if the data are homogeneous or if there are many missing values, LinCmb puts more weight on global imputation methods. Thus, LinCmb is a useful tool to understand the merits of different imputation methods. We also demonstrate that missing values affect significance analysis. Two datasets, different amounts of missing values, different imputation methods, the standard t-test and the regularized t-test and ANOVA are employed in the simulations. We conclude that good imputation alleviates the impact of missing values and should be an integral part of microarray data analysis. The most competitive methods are LinCmb, GMC and BPCA. Popular imputation schemes such as SVD, row mean, and KNN all exhibit high variance and poor performance. The regularized t-test is less affected by missing values than the standard t-test. AVAILABILITY: Matlab code is available on request from the authors.     

Evaluation of missing data imputation methods for human osteometric measurements

It is not uncommon for biological anthropologists to analyze incomplete bioarcheological or forensic skeleton specimens. As many quantitative multivariate analyses cannot handle incomplete data, missing data imputation or estimation is a common preprocessing practice for such data. Using William W. Howells' Craniometric Data Set and the Goldman Osteometric Data Set, we evaluated the performance of multiple popular statistical methods for imputing missing metric measurements. Results indicated that multiple imputation methods outperformed single imputation methods, such as Bayesian principal component analysis (BPCA). Multiple imputation with Bayesian linear regression implemented in the R package norm2, the Expectation–Maximization (EM) with Bootstrapping algorithm implemented in Amelia, and the Predictive Mean Matching (PMM) method and several of the derivative linear regression models implemented in mice, perform well regarding accuracy, robustness, and speed. Based on the findings of this study, we suggest a practical procedure for choosing appropriate imputation methods.     

Multiple imputation and posterior simulation for multivariate missing data in longitudinal studies

This paper outlines a multiple imputation method for handling missing data in designed longitudinal studies. A random coefficients model is developed to accommodate incomplete multivariate continuous longitudinal data. Multivariate repeated measures are jointly modeled; specifically, an i.i.d. normal model is assumed for time-independent variables and a hierarchical random coefficients model is assumed for time-dependent variables in a regression model conditional on the time-independent variables and time, with heterogeneous error variances across variables and time points. Gibbs sampling is used to draw model parameters and for imputations of missing observations. An application to data from a study of startle reactions illustrates the model. A simulation study compares the multiple imputation procedure to the weighting approach of Robins, Rotnitzky, and Zhao (1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association 90, 106-121) that can be used to address similar data structures.     

Multiple imputation methods for treatment noncompliance and nonresponse in randomized clinical trials

Summary .  Randomized clinical trials are a powerful tool for investigating causal treatment effects, but in human trials there are oftentimes problems of noncompliance which standard analyses, such as the intention-to-treat or as-treated analysis, either ignore or incorporate in such a way that the resulting estimand is no longer a causal effect. One alternative to these analyses is the complier average causal effect (CACE) which estimates the average causal treatment effect among a subpopulation that would comply under any treatment assigned. We focus on the setting of a randomized clinical trial with crossover treatment noncompliance (e.g., control subjects could receive the intervention and intervention subjects could receive the control) and outcome nonresponse. In this article, we develop estimators for the CACE using multiple imputation methods, which have been successfully applied to a wide variety of missing data problems, but have not yet been applied to the potential outcomes setting of causal inference. Using simulated data we investigate the finite sample properties of these estimators as well as of competing procedures in a simple setting. Finally we illustrate our methods using a real randomized encouragement design study on the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine.     

A robust method using propensity score stratification for correcting verification bias for binary tests

Sensitivity and specificity are common measures of the accuracy of a diagnostic test. The usual estimators of these quantities are unbiased if data on the diagnostic test result and the true disease status are obtained from all subjects in an appropriately selected sample. In some studies, verification of the true disease status is performed only for a subset of subjects, possibly depending on the result of the diagnostic test and other characteristics of the subjects. Estimators of sensitivity and specificity based on this subset of subjects are typically biased; this is known as verification bias. Methods have been proposed to correct verification bias under the assumption that the missing data on disease status are missing at random (MAR), that is, the probability of missingness depends on the true (missing) disease status only through the test result and observed covariate information. When some of the covariates are continuous, or the number of covariates is relatively large, the existing methods require parametric models for the probability of disease or the probability of verification (given the test result and covariates), and hence are subject to model misspecification. We propose a new method for correcting verification bias based on the propensity score, defined as the predicted probability of verification given the test result and observed covariates. This is estimated separately for those with positive and negative test results. The new method classifies the verified sample into several subsamples that have homogeneous propensity scores and allows correction for verification bias. Simulation studies demonstrate that the new estimators are more robust to model misspecification than existing methods, but still perform well when the models for the probability of disease and probability of verification are correctly specified.     

Youden Index and optimal cut-point estimated from observations affected by a lower limit of detection

The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is used to evaluate a biomarker's ability for classifying disease status. The Youden Index (J), the maximum potential effectiveness of a biomarker, is a common summary measure of the ROC curve. In biomarker development, levels may be unquantifiable below a limit of detection (LOD) and missing from the overall dataset. Disregarding these observations may negatively bias the ROC curve and thus J. Several correction methods have been suggested for mean estimation and testing; however, little has been written about the ROC curve or its summary measures. We adapt non-parametric (empirical) and semi-parametric (ROC-GLM [generalized linear model]) methods and propose parametric methods (maximum likelihood (ML)) to estimate J and the optimal cut-point (c *) for a biomarker affected by a LOD. We develop unbiased estimators of J and c * via ML for normally and gamma distributed biomarkers. Alpha level confidence intervals are proposed using delta and bootstrap methods for the ML, semi-parametric, and non-parametric approaches respectively. Simulation studies are conducted over a range of distributional scenarios and sample sizes evaluating estimators' bias, root-mean square error, and coverage probability; the average bias was less than one percent for ML and GLM methods across scenarios and decreases with increased sample size. An example using polychlorinated biphenyl levels to classify women with and without endometriosis illustrates the potential benefits of these methods. We address the limitations and usefulness of each method in order to give researchers guidance in constructing appropriate estimates of biomarkers' true discriminating capabilities.     

Dealing with missing data in family-based association studies: a multiple imputation approach

To test for association between a disease and a set of linked markers, or to estimate relative risks of disease, several different methods have been developed. Many methods for family data require that individuals be genotyped at the full set of markers and that phase can be reconstructed. Individuals with missing data are excluded from the analysis. This can result in an important decrease in sample size and a loss of information. A possible solution to this problem is to use missing-data likelihood methods. We propose an alternative approach, namely the use of multiple imputation. Briefly, this method consists in estimating from the available data all possible phased genotypes and their respective posterior probabilities. These posterior probabilities are then used to generate replicate imputed data sets via a data augmentation algorithm. We performed simulations to test the efficiency of this approach for case/parent trio data and we found that the multiple imputation procedure generally gave unbiased parameter estimates with correct type 1 error and confidence interval coverage. Multiple imputation had some advantages over missing data likelihood methods with regards to ease of use and model flexibility. Multiple imputation methods represent promising tools in the search for disease susceptibility variants.