Entropy Guided Benchmarking of Classical and Generative Imputation Methods for High-Dimensional Healthcare Survey Data
Source abstract
Abstract
Missing data are a persistent challenge in large healthcare datasets, often undermining both statistical validity and machine learning performance when handled using simplistic assumptions. In this work, we examine how entropy-based diagnostics can guide the selection of imputation strategies for high-dimensional health survey data using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2021–2023. Shannon entropy is used to identify variables with structurally complex missingness, and a range of classical approaches (mean imputation, k-nearest neighbors, and multiple imputation by chained equations) are evaluated alongside deep generative methods, including variational autoencoders, generative adversarial networks (GANs), Wasserstein GANs (WGANs), and diffusion-based models. All methods are compared under a controlled masked-entry evaluation using root mean square error (RMSE) and Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) statistics to capture both reconstruction accuracy and distributional fidelity. Results show that diffusion-based models provide the most consistent balance between numerical accuracy and distributional preservation across high-entropy dietary variables, while WGAN demonstrates competitive performance for selected distributions. Structural equation modeling further indicates that entropy is a useful diagnostic signal for identifying variables that are difficult to reconstruct. Overall, this study provides a reproducible framework for aligning imputation strategy with missingness complexity in healthcare data, with implications for improving reliability in downstream analytics.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Healthcare · Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference · Bayesian Methods and Mixture Models
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Modeling, Simulation, and Training, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32826, USA
School of Global Health Management and Informatics, College of Community Innovation and Education, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA
References (63)
Show source-provided references
1. National Center for Health Statistics (2026, March 14). NHANES Survey Methods and Analytic Guidelines, Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/analyticguidelines.aspx.
2. Rubin, D.B. (1987). Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys, Wiley.10.1002/9780470316696 ↗
3. Little, R.J.A., and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, Wiley. [2nd ed.].10.1002/9781119013563 ↗
4. A mathematical theory of communication10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x ↗
5. van Buuren, S. (2018). Flexible Imputation of Missing Data, CRC Press. [2nd ed.].10.1201/9780429492259 ↗
6. Multiple imputation by chained equations10.1002/mpr.329 ↗
7. Kingma, D.P., and Welling, M. (2014, January 14–16). Auto-encoding variational Bayes. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), Banff, AB, Canada. Available online: http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6114.
8. Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., and Bengio, Y. (2014, January 8–13). Generative adversarial networks. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 27), Montreal, QC, Canada.
9. Ho, J., Jain, A., and Abbeel, P. (2020, January 6–12). Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 33), Virtual Conference. Available online: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/hash/4c5bcfec8584af0d967f1ab10179ca4b-Abstract.html.
10. Schafer, J.L. (1997). Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data, Chapman & Hall.10.1201/9781439821862 ↗
11. Enders, C.K. (2010). Applied Missing Data Analysis, Guilford Press.
12. Assessing missing data assumptions in EHR-based studies10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0184 ↗
13. Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530 ↗
14. Carpenter, J.R., and Kenward, M.G. (2013). Multiple Imputation and Its Application, Wiley.10.1002/9781119942283 ↗
15. Inverse probability weighting for missing data10.1177/0962280210395740 ↗
16. Bias and efficiency of multiple imputation compared with complete-case analysis10.1002/sim.3944 ↗
17. Molenberghs, G., and Kenward, M. (2007). Missing Data in Clinical Studies, Wiley.10.1002/9780470510445 ↗
18. Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: Enabling reuse for clinical research10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000681 ↗
19. Caveats for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829b1dbd ↗
20. Next-generation phenotyping of electronic health records10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001145 ↗
21. A new paradigm to analyze data completeness of patient data10.4338/ACI-2016-04-RA-0063 ↗
22. Fernandes Prabhu, D., Gurupur, V.P., Hadley, D., and Prabhu, V. (2025, January 4–6). Addressing data incompleteness in NHANES 2021–2023. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Innovations in Computational Intelligence and Computer Vision (ICICV 2025), Calabria, Italy.10.1007/978-3-032-09825-2_9 ↗
23. Multiple imputation using chained equations10.1002/sim.4067 ↗
24. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R
25. A multivariate technique for multiply imputing missing values using a sequence of regression models
26. Amelia II: A program for missing data10.18637/jss.v045.i07 ↗
27. MissForest—Non-parametric missing value imputation10.1093/bioinformatics/btr597 ↗
28. Spectral regularization algorithms for learning large incomplete matrices
29. Missing value estimation methods for DNA microarrays10.1093/bioinformatics/17.6.520 ↗
30. Yoon, J., Jordon, J., and Schaar, M. (2018, January 10–15). GAIN: Missing data imputation using generative adversarial nets. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Stockholm, Sweden. Available online: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v80/yoon18a.html.
31. Handling missing values in healthcare data: A systematic review of deep learning-based imputation techniques10.1016/j.artmed.2023.102587 ↗
32. Mattei, P.-A., and Frellsen, J. (2019, January 9–15). MIWAE: Deep generative modelling and imputation of incomplete data sets. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Long Beach, CA, USA. Available online: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v97/mattei19a.html.
33. Ipsen, N.B., Mattei, P.-A., and Frellsen, J. (2020). not-MIWAE: Deep generative modelling with missing not at random data. arXiv.
34. Li, S.C.-X., Jiang, B., and Marlin, B.M. (2019). MisGAN: Learning from incomplete data with generative adversarial networks. arXiv.
35. Nichol, A.Q., and Dhariwal, P. (2021, January 18–24). Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Virtual Conference. Available online: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/nichol21a.html.
36. Song, Y., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Kingma, D.P., Kumar, A., Ermon, S., and Poole, B. (2021). Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. arXiv.
37. Song, J., Meng, C., and Ermon, S. (2021). Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv.
38. Kotelnikov, A., Baranchuk, D., Rubachev, I., and Babenko, A. (2023, January 23–29). TabDDPM: Modelling tabular data with diffusion models. Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Honolulu, HI, USA. Available online: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v202/kotelnikov23a.html.
39. Ouyang, Y., Xie, L., Li, C., and Cheng, G. (2023). MissDiff: Training diffusion models on tabular data with missing values. arXiv.
40. Machine learning analysis for data incompleteness (MADI)10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3095240 ↗
41. Lumley, T. (2010). Complex Surveys: A Guide to Analysis Using R, Wiley.10.1002/9780470580066 ↗
42. Korn, E.L., and Graubard, B.I. (1999). Analysis of Health Surveys, Wiley.10.1002/9781118032619 ↗
43. Willett, W. (2012). Nutritional Epidemiology, Oxford University Press. [2nd ed.].10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199754038.001.0001 ↗
44. Using biomarkers to evaluate the extent of dietary misreporting in a large sample of adults: The OPEN study
45. Empirical evidence of correlated biases in dietary assessment instruments10.1093/aje/153.4.394 ↗
46. Using intake biomarkers to evaluate the extent of dietary misreporting in a large sample of adults: The OPEN study
47. When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials—A practical guide with flowcharts
48. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2021). National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report, AHRQ.
49. Gurupur, V.P., Abedin, P., Hooshmand, S., and Shelleh, M. (2022). Analyzing the Data Completeness of Patients’ Records Using a Random Variable Approach to Predict the Incompleteness of Electronic Health Records. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app122110746 ↗
50. Inference and missing data10.1093/biomet/63.3.581 ↗
51. Handling incomplete heterogeneous data using VAEs10.1016/j.patcog.2020.107501 ↗
52. Arjovsky, M., Chintala, S., and Bottou, L. (2017, January 6–11). Wasserstein generative adversarial networks. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Sydney, NSW, Australia. Available online: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/arjovsky17a.html.
53. Tashiro, Y., Song, J., Song, Y., and Ermon, S. (2021, January 6–14). CSDI: Conditional score-based diffusion models for probabilistic time series imputation. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 34), Virtual Conference. Available online: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2021/hash/cfe8504bda37b575c70ee1a8276f3486-Abstract.html.
54. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2026, March 10). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2021–2023, Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/.
55. National Center for Health Statistics (2023). NHANES Linked Mortality Files: Methodology and Analytic Considerations, CDC.
56. Little, R.J.A., and Rubin, D.B. (2019). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, Wiley. [3rd ed.].10.1002/9781119482260 ↗
57. Sulla determinazione empirica di una legge di distribuzione
58. Table for estimating the goodness of fit10.1214/aoms/1177730256 ↗
59. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for goodness of fit10.1080/01621459.1951.10500769 ↗
60. Gulrajani, I., Ahmed, F., Arjovsky, M., Dumoulin, V., and Courville, A.C. (2017, January 4–9). Improved training of Wasserstein GANs. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 30), Long Beach, CA, USA. Available online: https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/hash/892c3b1c6dccd52936e27cbd0ff683d6-Abstract.html.
61. Missing data: Our view of the state of the art10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147 ↗
62. Ma, C., Tschiatschek, S., Palla, K., Hernández-Lobato, J.M., Nowozin, S., and Zhang, C. (2018, January 10–15). EDDI: Efficient dynamic discovery of high-value information with partial VAE. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Stockholm, Sweden. Available online: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v80/ma18b.html.
63. Xu, L., Skoularidou, M., Cuesta-Infante, A., and Veeramachaneni, K. (2019, January 8–14). Modeling tabular data using conditional GAN. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 32), Vancouver, BC, Canada. Available online: https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2019/hash/254ed7d2de3b23ab10936522dd547b78-Abstract.html.