Training recurrent neural networks robust to incomplete data: application to Alzheimer's disease progression modeling

Disease progression modeling (DPM) using longitudinal data is a challenging machine learning task. Existing DPM algorithms neglect temporal dependencies among measurements, make parametric assumptions about biomarker trajectories, do not model multiple biomarkers jointly, and need an alignment of subjects' trajectories. In this paper, recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are utilized to address these issues. However, in many cases, longitudinal cohorts contain incomplete data, which hinders the application of standard RNNs and requires a pre-processing step such as imputation of the missing values. Instead, we propose a generalized training rule for the most widely used RNN architecture, long short-term memory (LSTM) networks, that can handle both missing predictor and target values. The proposed LSTM algorithm is applied to model the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) using six volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) biomarkers, i.e., volumes of ventricles, hippocampus, whole brain, fusiform, middle temporal gyrus, and entorhinal cortex, and it is compared to standard LSTM networks with data imputation and a parametric, regression-based DPM method. The results show that the proposed algorithm achieves a significantly lower mean absolute error (MAE) than the alternatives with p < 0.05 using Wilcoxon signed rank test in predicting values of almost all of the MRI biomarkers. Moreover, a linear discriminant analysis (LDA) classifier applied to the predicted biomarker values produces a significantly larger AUC of 0.90 vs. at most 0.84 with p < 0.001 using McNemar's test for clinical diagnosis of AD. Inspection of MAE curves as a function of the amount of missing data reveals that the proposed LSTM algorithm achieves the best performance up until more than 74% missing values. Finally, it is illustrated how the method can successfully be applied to data with varying time intervals.Comment: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1808.0550

On the role of pre and post-processing in environmental data mining

The quality of discovered knowledge is highly depending on data quality. Unfortunately real data use to contain noise, uncertainty, errors, redundancies or even irrelevant information. The more complex is the reality to be analyzed, the higher the risk of getting low quality data. Knowledge Discovery from Databases (KDD) offers a global framework to prepare data in the right form to perform correct analyses. On the other hand, the quality of decisions taken upon KDD results, depend not only on the quality of the results themselves, but on the capacity of the system to communicate those results in an understandable form. Environmental systems are particularly complex and environmental users particularly require clarity in their results. In this paper some details about how this can be achieved are provided. The role of the pre and post processing in the whole process of Knowledge Discovery in environmental systems is discussed

Taking "Don't Knows" as Valid Responses: A Complete Random Imputation of Missing Data

Incomplete data is a common problem of survey research. Recent work on multiple imputation techniques has increased analysts' awareness of the biasing effects of missing data and has also provided a convenient solution. Imputation methods replace non-response with estimates of the unobserved scores. In many instances, however, non-response to a stimulus does not result from measurement problems that inhibit accurate surveying of empirical reality, but from the inapplicability of the survey question. In such cases, existing imputation techniques replace valid non-response with counterfactual estimates of a situation in which the stimulus is applicable to all respondents. This paper suggests an alternative imputation procedure for incomplete data for which no true score exists: multiple complete random imputation, which overcomes the biasing effects of missing data and allows analysts to model respondents' valid "I don't know" answers.Missing data; Incomplete data; Non-response; Multiple imputation; Survey methodology; Mixture regression models; Vote choice