TY - JOUR
T1 - Benchmarking Missing Data Imputation Methods for Time Series Using Real-World Test Cases
AU - Aishat, Adedolapo
AU - Celik, Asuman
AU - Kleinberg, Samantha
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 A.A. Toye, A. Celik & S. Kleinberg.
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105014756120
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105014756120#tab=citedBy
M3 - Conference article
AN - SCOPUS:105014756120
VL - 287
JO - Proceedings of Machine Learning Research
JF - Proceedings of Machine Learning Research
T2 - 6th Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning, CHIL 2025
Y2 - 25 June 2025 through 27 June 2025
ER -