Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 177

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multiple imputation of missing covariates with non-linear effects and interactions: an evaluation of statistical methods

Open access
Seaman, Shaun R, Bartlett, Jonathan W, White, Ian R·2012·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiple imputation is often used for missing data. When a model contains as covariates more than one function of a variable, it is not obvious how best to impute missing values in these covariates. Consider a regression with outcome Y and covariates X and X2. In 'passive imputation' a value X* is imputed for X and then X2 is imputed as (X*)2. A recent proposal is to treat X2 as 'just another variable' (JAV) and impute X and X2 under multivariate normality. METHODS: We use simulation to investigate the performance of three methods that can easily be implemented in standard software: 1) linear regression of X on Y to impute X then passive imputation of X2; 2) the same regression but with predictive mean matching (PMM); and 3) JAV. We also investigate the performance of analogous methods when the analysis involves an interaction, and study the theoretical properties of JAV. The application of the methods when complete or incomplete confounders are also present is illustrated using data from the EPIC Study. RESULTS: JAV gives consistent estimation when the analysis is linear regression with a quadratic or interaction term and X is missing completely at random. When X is missing at random, JAV may be biased, but this bias is generally less than for passive imputation and PMM. Coverage for JAV was usually good when bias was small. However, in some scenarios with a more pronounced quadratic effect, bias was large and coverage poor. When the analysis was logistic regression, JAV's performance was sometimes very poor. PMM generally improved on passive imputation, in terms of bias and coverage, but did not eliminate the bias. CONCLUSIONS: Given the current state of available software, JAV is the best of a set of imperfect imputation methods for linear regression with a quadratic or interaction effect, but should not be used for logistic regression.

Overview

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 · 10.1186/1471-2288-12-46

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 177

Metadata

Authors
Seaman, S. R., Bartlett, J. W., & White, I. R.
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2012-04-10
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
46-46
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057777484
Cited by
177
References
4
FWCI
7.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Multiple imputation of missing covariates with non-linear effects and interactions: an evaluation of statistical methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2288-12-46
The paper
Seaman, S. R., Bartlett, J. W., & White, I. R. (2012). Multiple imputation of missing covariates with non-linear effects and interactions: an evaluation of statistical methods. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-46

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.