Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11189/7341
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMasconi, Katya L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMatsha, Tandi Edithen_US
dc.contributor.authorErasmus, Rajiv Ten_US
dc.contributor.authorKengne, Andre Pascalen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-30T09:31:06Z-
dc.date.available2020-06-30T09:31:06Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.citationMasconi, K. L., Matsha, T. E., Erasmus, R. T. et al. 2015. Effects of Different Missing Data Imputation Techniques on the Performance of Undiagnosed Diabetes Risk Prediction Models in a Mixed-Ancestry Population of South Africa. PLoS ONE, 10(9): e0139210. [http://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0139210]en_US
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11189/7341-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Imputation techniques used to handle missing data are based on the principle of replacement. It is widely advocated that multiple imputation is superior to other imputation methods, however studies have suggested that simple methods for filling missing data can be just as accurate as complex methods. The objective of this study was to implement a number of simple and more complex imputation methods, and assess the effect of these techniques on the performance of undiagnosed diabetes risk prediction models during external validation. Methods: Data from the Cape Town Bellville-South cohort served as the basis for this study. Imputation methods and models were identified via recent systematic reviews. Models’ discrimination was assessed and compared using C-statistic and non-parametric methods, before and after recalibration through simple intercept adjustment. Results: The study sample consisted of 1256 individuals, of whom 173 were excluded due to previously diagnosed diabetes. Of the final 1083 individuals, 329 (30.4%) had missing data. Family history had the highest proportion of missing data (25%). Imputation of the outcome, undiagnosed diabetes, was highest in stochastic regression imputation (163 individuals). Overall, deletion resulted in the lowest model performances while simple imputation yielded the highest C-statistic for the Cambridge Diabetes Risk model, Kuwaiti Risk model, Omani Diabetes Risk model and Rotterdam Predictive model. Multiple imputation only yielded the highest C-statistic for the Rotterdam Predictive model, which were matched by simpler imputation methods. Conclusions: Deletion was confirmed as a poor technique for handling missing data. However, despite the emphasized disadvantages of simpler imputation methods, this study showed that implementing these methods results in similar predictive utility for undiagnosed diabetes when compared to multiple imputation.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPublic Library of Scienceen_US
dc.relation.ispartofPlos Oneen_US
dc.subjectImputation techniquesen_US
dc.subjectundiagnosed diabetesen_US
dc.subjectmultiple imputationen_US
dc.subjectBellville-Southen_US
dc.subjectstochastic regression imputationen_US
dc.titleEffects of Different Missing Data Imputation Techniques on the Performance of Undiagnosed Diabetes Risk Prediction Models in a Mixed-Ancestry Population of South Africaen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0139210-
dc.typeArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:HWSci - Journal Articles (DHET subsidised)
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Effects of Different Missing Data Imputation.pdf674.68 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

16
checked on Feb 9, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in Digital Knowledge are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.