使用真实世界测试用例对时间序列的缺失数据插入方法进行基准测试。

Adedolapo Aishat Toye, Asuman Celik, Samantha Kleinberg
{"title":"使用真实世界测试用例对时间序列的缺失数据插入方法进行基准测试。","authors":"Adedolapo Aishat Toye, Asuman Celik, Samantha Kleinberg","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Missing data is pervasive in healthcare. Many imputation methods exist to fill in missing values, yet most were evaluated using randomly deleted values rather than the actual mechanisms they were designed to address. We aimed to determine real-world accuracy for missing data imputation with three missing data mechanisms (missing completely at random, MCAR; missing at random, MAR; and not missing at random, NMAR) for state of the art and commonly used imputation methods. Using two time series data targets (continuous glucose monitoring, Loop dataset; heart rate, All of Us dataset) we simulated missingness by masking values for each mechanism, at a range of missingness percentages (5-30%) and tested 12 imputation methods. We evaluated accuracy with multiple metrics including root mean square error (RMSE) and bias. We found that overall, accuracy was significantly better on MCAR than on MAR and NMAR, despite many methods being developed for those mechanisms. Linear interpolation had the lowest RMSE with all mechanisms and for all demographic groups, with low bias. This study shows that current evaluation practices do not provide an accurate picture of real world performance with realistic patterns of missingness. Future research is needed to develop evaluation practices that better capture real-world accuracy, and methods that better address real-world mechanisms.</p>","PeriodicalId":74504,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of machine learning research","volume":"287 ","pages":"480-501"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12392262/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Benchmarking Missing Data Imputation Methods for Time Series Using Real-World Test Cases.\",\"authors\":\"Adedolapo Aishat Toye, Asuman Celik, Samantha Kleinberg\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Missing data is pervasive in healthcare. Many imputation methods exist to fill in missing values, yet most were evaluated using randomly deleted values rather than the actual mechanisms they were designed to address. We aimed to determine real-world accuracy for missing data imputation with three missing data mechanisms (missing completely at random, MCAR; missing at random, MAR; and not missing at random, NMAR) for state of the art and commonly used imputation methods. Using two time series data targets (continuous glucose monitoring, Loop dataset; heart rate, All of Us dataset) we simulated missingness by masking values for each mechanism, at a range of missingness percentages (5-30%) and tested 12 imputation methods. We evaluated accuracy with multiple metrics including root mean square error (RMSE) and bias. We found that overall, accuracy was significantly better on MCAR than on MAR and NMAR, despite many methods being developed for those mechanisms. Linear interpolation had the lowest RMSE with all mechanisms and for all demographic groups, with low bias. This study shows that current evaluation practices do not provide an accurate picture of real world performance with realistic patterns of missingness. Future research is needed to develop evaluation practices that better capture real-world accuracy, and methods that better address real-world mechanisms.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74504,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of machine learning research\",\"volume\":\"287 \",\"pages\":\"480-501\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12392262/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of machine learning research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of machine learning research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数据缺失在医疗保健行业非常普遍。存在许多填入方法来填补缺失值,但是大多数都是使用随机删除的值进行评估,而不是设计它们来处理的实际机制。我们的目标是通过三种缺失数据机制(完全随机缺失,MCAR;随机缺失,MAR;非随机缺失,NMAR)来确定最先进和常用的缺失数据插入方法的真实世界准确性。使用两个时间序列数据目标(连续血糖监测,Loop数据集;心率,All of Us数据集),我们在缺失百分比范围内(5-30%)通过每种机制的掩蔽值模拟缺失,并测试了12种imputation方法。我们用包括均方根误差(RMSE)和偏倚在内的多个指标来评估准确性。我们发现,总体而言,尽管针对这些机制开发了许多方法,但MCAR的准确性明显优于MAR和NMAR。线性插值在所有机制和所有人口群体中均具有最低的RMSE,偏差低。这项研究表明,目前的评估实践不能提供真实世界的表现与现实模式的缺失的准确图片。未来的研究需要开发评估实践,以更好地捕捉现实世界的准确性,以及更好地解决现实世界机制的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Benchmarking Missing Data Imputation Methods for Time Series Using Real-World Test Cases.

Missing data is pervasive in healthcare. Many imputation methods exist to fill in missing values, yet most were evaluated using randomly deleted values rather than the actual mechanisms they were designed to address. We aimed to determine real-world accuracy for missing data imputation with three missing data mechanisms (missing completely at random, MCAR; missing at random, MAR; and not missing at random, NMAR) for state of the art and commonly used imputation methods. Using two time series data targets (continuous glucose monitoring, Loop dataset; heart rate, All of Us dataset) we simulated missingness by masking values for each mechanism, at a range of missingness percentages (5-30%) and tested 12 imputation methods. We evaluated accuracy with multiple metrics including root mean square error (RMSE) and bias. We found that overall, accuracy was significantly better on MCAR than on MAR and NMAR, despite many methods being developed for those mechanisms. Linear interpolation had the lowest RMSE with all mechanisms and for all demographic groups, with low bias. This study shows that current evaluation practices do not provide an accurate picture of real world performance with realistic patterns of missingness. Future research is needed to develop evaluation practices that better capture real-world accuracy, and methods that better address real-world mechanisms.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信