Abstract
Accurate computational models for clinical decision support systems require clean and reliable data but, in clinical practice, data are often incomplete. Hence, missing data could arise not only from training datasets but also test datasets which could consist of a single undiagnosed case, an individual. This work addresses the problem of extreme missingness in both training and test data by evaluating multiple imputation and classification workflows based on both diagnostic classification accuracy and computational cost. Extreme missingness is defined as having ∼50% of the total data missing in more than half the data features. In particular, we focus on dementia diagnosis due to long time delays, high variability, high attrition rates and lack of practical data imputation strategies in its diagnostic pathway. We identified and replicated the extreme missingness structure of data from a real-world memory clinic on a larger open dataset, with the original complete data acting as ground truth. Overall, we found that computational cost, but not accuracy, varies widely for various imputation and classification approaches. Particularly, we found that iterative imputation on the training dataset combined with a reduced-feature classification model provides the best approach, in terms of speed and accuracy. Taken together, this work has elucidated important factors to be considered when developing a predictive model for a dementia diagnostic support system.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the European Union's INTERREG VA Programme, managed by the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), and additional support by Alzheimer's Research UK (XD, MB, ST, PLM, KW-L), Ulster University Research Challenge Fund (XD, MB, ST, PLM, KW-L), and the Dr George Moore Endowment for Data Science at Ulster University (MB). The views and opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission or the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics approval for anonymous data from Altnagelvin Area Hospital's Memory Assessment Service (WHSCT) was obtained from the Office for Research Ethics Committee Northern Ireland (ORECNI, HSC REC B reference: 17/NI/0142; IRAS project ID: 230077).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This work was supported by the European Union’s INTERREG VA Programme, managed by the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), and additional support by Alzheimer’s Research UK (XD, MB, ST, PLM., KW-L), Ulster University Research Challenge Fund (XD, MB, ST, PLM, KW-L), and the Dr George Moore Endowment for Data Science at Ulster University (MB). The views and opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission or the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB).
This is a revised paper. Supplementary materials are available in a separate document.
Data Availability
Data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is openly available.
