2020
DOI: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1446
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Three‐step imputation of missing values in condition monitoring datasets

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For different miss rates and dimensions, we compare various imputation methods to simulate experimental results [17]. Observing Tables 5, 6 and 7, we can draw the following conclusions.…”
Section: Scenariomentioning
confidence: 80%
“…For different miss rates and dimensions, we compare various imputation methods to simulate experimental results [17]. Observing Tables 5, 6 and 7, we can draw the following conclusions.…”
Section: Scenariomentioning
confidence: 80%
“…To elucidate if a non-linear relationship existed between occupational PA and hypertension prevalence, we used a restricted cubic spline model with three knots set at the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles of occupational PA [ 33 , 34 ] without using multiple imputation [ 35 ]. The model was adjusted for the variables included in Model 3, except for household income, which contained missing values.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After studying them, we found that there are some algorithms that are less sensitive to the interconnectedness of variables in an employee dataset. Imputing missing values in isolation [21] can break the relationships between variables and lead to inconsistent or implausible imputed data.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%