4.6 Article

Multiple imputation with compatibility for high-dimensional data

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 16, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254112

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In high-dimensional settings, Multiple Imputation (MI) is challenging, a semi-compatible imputation model is proposed by relaxing the lasso penalty and using a ridge penalty to address instability and convergence issues. The proposed approach shows superior performance to existing MI techniques in simulation studies and real-life datasets while addressing compatibility problems.
Multiple Imputation (MI) is always challenging in high dimensional settings. The imputation model with some selected number of predictors can be incompatible with the analysis model leading to inconsistent and biased estimates. Although compatibility in such cases may not be achieved, but one can obtain consistent and unbiased estimates using a semi-compatible imputation model. We propose to relax the lasso penalty for selecting a large set of variables (at most n). The substantive model that also uses some formal variable selection procedure in high-dimensional structures is then expected to be nested in this imputation model. The resulting imputation model will be semi-compatible with high probability. The likelihood estimates can be unstable and can face the convergence issues as the number of variables becomes nearly as large as the sample size. To address these issues, we further propose to use a ridge penalty for obtaining the posterior distribution of the parameters based on the observed data. The proposed technique is compared with the standard MI software and MI techniques available for high-dimensional data in simulation studies and a real life dataset. Our results exhibit the superiority of the proposed approach to the existing MI approaches while addressing the compatibility issue.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available