↓ Skip to main content

Random forest missing data algorithms

Overview of attention for article published in Statistical Analysis & Data Mining, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 249)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
519 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Random forest missing data algorithms
Published in
Statistical Analysis & Data Mining, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/sam.11348
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Random forest (RF) missing data algorithms are an attractive approach for imputing missing data. They have the desirable properties of being able to handle mixed types of missing data, they are adaptive to interactions and nonlinearity, and they have the potential to scale to big data settings. Currently there are many different RF imputation algorithms, but relatively little guidance about their efficacy. Using a large, diverse collection of data sets, imputation performance of various RF algorithms was assessed under different missing data mechanisms. Algorithms included proximity imputation, on the fly imputation, and imputation utilizing multivariate unsupervised and supervised splitting-the latter class representing a generalization of a new promising imputation algorithm called missForest. Our findings reveal RF imputation to be generally robust with performance improving with increasing correlation. Performance was good under moderate to high missingness, and even (in certain cases) when data was missing not at random.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 519 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 518 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 85 16%
Student > Master 68 13%
Researcher 57 11%
Student > Bachelor 27 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 4%
Other 57 11%
Unknown 204 39%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 56 11%
Engineering 51 10%
Mathematics 32 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 4%
Other 111 21%
Unknown 224 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2026.
All research outputs
#1,650,719
of 34,763,505 outputs
Outputs from Statistical Analysis & Data Mining
#3
of 249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,538
of 366,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Statistical Analysis & Data Mining
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,763,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 249 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,988 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them