Cited by 56Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceNeural Networks and Applications

Multi-Modal Stacked Denoising Autoencoder for Handling Missing Data in Healthcare Big Data

Open access
Kim, Joo-Chang, Chung, Kyungyong·2020·IEEE Access

Abstract

Supply and demand increase in response to healthcare trends. Moreover, personal health records (PHRs) are being managed by individuals. Such records are collected using different avenues and vary considerably in terms of their type and scope depending on the particular circumstances. As a result, some data may be missing, which has a negative effect on the data analysis, and such data should, therefore, be replaced with appropriate values. In this study, a method for estimating missing data using a multi-modal autoencoder applied to the field of healthcare big data is proposed. The proposed method uses a stacked denoising autoencoder to estimate the missing data that occur during the data collection and processing stages. Autoencoders are neural networks that output value of x^similar to an input value of x. In the present study, data from the Korean National Health Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHNES), conducted by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC), are used. As representative healthcare data from South Korea, they contain a large number of parameters identical to those used in the PHRs. Based on this, models can be generated to estimate missing data occurring in PHRs. Furthermore, PHRs involve a multi-modality that allows the data to be collected from multiple sources for a single object. Therefore, the stacked denoising autoencoder applied is configured under a multi-modal setting. Through pre-processing, a set of data without missing value in KNHNES is designed. In the data set based learning, a label is set as original data, and an autoencoder input is set as noised input that additionally has as many random zero numbers as noise factor. In this way, the autoencoder learns in the way of making the zero-based noise value similar to the original label value. When the amount of missing data in a dataset reaches approximately 25%, the accuracy of the proposed method using a multi-modal stacked denoising autoencoder is 0.9217, which is higher than that achieved by other ordinary methods. For a single-modal denoising autoencoder, the accuracy is 0.932, with a slight difference of approximately 0.01, which falls within the allowable limits in data analysis. In terms of computational performance, a single-modal autoencoder has 10,384 parameters, which is 5,594 more than those used in a multi-modal stacked autoencoder. These parameters affect the speed of the model. Both models exhibit a significant difference in the number of parameters but demonstrate a relatively small difference in accuracy, suggesting that the proposed multi-modal stacked denoising autoencoder is advantageous over a single-modal model when used on a personal device. Moreover, a multi-modal model can save additional time when processing large amounts of data in locations such as hospitals and institutions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2020.2997255

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Stacked-autoencoder-based multimodal systems compress each modality separately in the encoder and build a shared latent representation in the decoder without supervision.

    “the authors of [210–212] designed multimodal systems based on SAEs, where the encoder side of the architecture represents and compresses each unimodal feature separately, and the decoder side constructs the latent (shared) representation of the inputs in a unsupervised manner.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. S. García, J. Luengo, and F. Herrera, Data Preprocessing in Data Mining New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2015, pp. 59-139.
  2. J. Benesty, J. Chen, Y. Huang, and I. Cohen, ''Pearson correlation coef- ficient,'' in Noise Reduction in Speech Processing. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2009, pp. 1-4.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, J.-C., & Chung, K.
Affiliations
Kyonggi University (KR)
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2020
Volume
8
Pages
104933-104943
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3033040110
Cited by
56
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4
FWCI
6.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement
  • Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (20CTAP-C157011-01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
Keywords
missing data imputation, stacked denoising autoencoder, personal health records, big data in healthcare, missing data estimation, data processing errors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review