ArticlePloS one2026
Mission imputable: Effects of missing data processing on infectious disease detection and prognosis.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMissing data in medical datasets poses significant challenges for developing effective AI/ML pipelines. Inaccurate imputation can lead to biased results, reduced model performance, and compromised clinical insights. Understanding how different imputation methods affect AI/ML model performance is crucial for ensuring accurate clinical findings.
objectiveThis study systematically investigates the effects of different imputation methods on AI/ML model performance and their clinical implications.
methodsWe investigate the impact of six different missing data strategies on the performance of common classification algorithms for analyzing medical data. The performance was evaluated based on sensitivity and specificity metrics for the tasks of predicting COVID-19 diagnosis and patient deterioration. We also perform feature analysis to understand the clinical implications that the choice of imputation method has.
resultsThe findings reveal that the effects of imputation depend on the clinical setting. For a general screening cohort (Einstein Data4u), multivariate imputation by chained equations (MICE) yielded the best performance in clinical settings, resulting in a 26% improvement in sensitivity compared to baseline methods and unmasking critical viral coinfections. Conversely, in an intensive care cohort (MIMIC-IV), complete-case analysis initially showed higher raw predictive metrics. However, further analysis demonstrates that this stems from selection bias driven by informative missingness (MNAR), where testing patterns are intrinsically tied to patient severity. Thus, while imputation recovers diagnostic signals in sparse screening data, it serves as a crucial tool for reducing bias in high-acuity settings.
conclusionThis study demonstrates the critical impact of missing data imputation on AI/ML model performance and the resulting clinical insights. Our findings underscore the importance of selecting appropriate imputation techniques tailored to the specific characteristics of medical data to ensure accurate and reliable AI/ML predictions. By utilizing a rigorous cross-validation pipeline and a systematic comparison, we provide insights for selecting the most appropriate imputation methods for clinical decision-making applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.