A model-agnostic framework for dataset-specific selection of missing value imputation methods in pain-related numerical data

Missing value imputation is a routine step in biomedical data analysis, yet techniques are often not tailored to specific datasets. We propose a systematic framework for selecting imputation methods customized for the unique characteristics of cross-sectional numerical data, with a focus on pain-related biomedical research. This approach generates artificial "diagnostic" missing values by randomly removing entries, allowing for direct assessment of reconstruction accuracy across various algorithms. We introduce two novel classes of diagnostic reference methods: pseudo or "poisoned" imputation methods, which intentionally introduce bias into the imputation, and "calibrating" imputations, which inject controlled random noise for objective evaluation. The framework was tested on synthetic datasets and four biomedical datasets, primarily focusing on pain-related data, employing 29 different imputation methods. Quantitative outputs, including root median square deviation (RMSD), median difference (MD), relative bias, and method categorization, facilitate a comprehensive assessment of imputation quality. The framework consistently identifies the most suitable imputation technique for each dataset, revealing that multivariate methods generally outperform univariate approaches. Benchmarking against poisoned and calibrated references establishes quantifiable thresholds for acceptable imputation errors, while also identifying instances where reliable imputations are unattainable. This systematic framework offers practical and reproducible guidelines for imputing missing values in biomedical contexts, particularly in pain research. By empowering researchers to make informed decisions about imputation, the framework enhances data integrity and the robustness of subsequent analyses. Its model-agnostic nature allows for the integration of various imputation methods, with an automated implementation available in the open-source R package "opImputation."

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Canadian Journal of Pain
Published
2026-01-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/24740527.2025.2595160
Primary Topic
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A model-agnostic framework for dataset-specific selection of missing value imputation methods in pain-related numerical data

Jörn Lötsch, Alfred Ultsch
Canadian Journal of Pain
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
article

A model-agnostic framework for dataset-specific selection of missing value imputation methods in pain-related numerical data

Jörn Lötsch, Alfred Ultsch
article en

Abstract

Missing value imputation is a routine step in biomedical data analysis, yet techniques are often not tailored to specific datasets. We propose a systematic framework for selecting imputation methods customized for the unique characteristics of cross-sectional numerical data, with a focus on pain-related biomedical research. This approach generates artificial "diagnostic" missing values by randomly removing entries, allowing for direct assessment of reconstruction accuracy across various algorithms. We introduce two novel classes of diagnostic reference methods: pseudo or "poisoned" imputation methods, which intentionally introduce bias into the imputation, and "calibrating" imputations, which inject controlled random noise for objective evaluation. The framework was tested on synthetic datasets and four biomedical datasets, primarily focusing on pain-related data, employing 29 different imputation methods. Quantitative outputs, including root median square deviation (RMSD), median difference (MD), relative bias, and method categorization, facilitate a comprehensive assessment of imputation quality. The framework consistently identifies the most suitable imputation technique for each dataset, revealing that multivariate methods generally outperform univariate approaches. Benchmarking against poisoned and calibrated references establishes quantifiable thresholds for acceptable imputation errors, while also identifying instances where reliable imputations are unattainable. This systematic framework offers practical and reproducible guidelines for imputing missing values in biomedical contexts, particularly in pain research. By empowering researchers to make informed decisions about imputation, the framework enhances data integrity and the robustness of subsequent analyses. Its model-agnostic nature allows for the integration of various imputation methods, with an automated implementation available in the open-source R package "opImputation."

Canadian Journal of PainVol. 10(1)
Goethe-Institute United Kingdom (GB), University of Helsinki (FI), Philipps University of Marburg (DE), Fraunhofer Institute for Translational Medicine and Pharmacology (DE)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.