Use of Response Permutation to Measure an Imaging Dataset’s Susceptibility to Overfitting by Selected Standard Analysis Pipelines
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Rationale and ObjectivesThis study demonstrates a method for quantifying the impact of overfitting on the receiving operator characteristic curve (AUC) when using standard analysis pipelines to develop imaging biomarkers. We illustrate the approach using two publicly available repositories of radiology and pathology images for breast cancer diagnosis.Materials and MethodsFor each dataset, we permuted the outcome (cancer diagnosis) values to eliminate any true association between imaging features and outcome. Seven types of classification models (logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, Naïve Bayes, linear support vector machines, nonlinear support vector machine, random forest, and multi-layer perceptron) were fitted to each scrambled dataset and evaluated by each of four techniques (all data, hold-out, 10-fold cross-validation, and bootstrapping). After repeating this process for a total of 50 outcome permutations, we averaged the resulting AUCs. Any increase over a null AUC of 0.5 can be attributed to overfitting.ResultsApplying this approach and varying sample size and the number of imaging features, we found that failing to control for overfitting could result in near-perfect prediction (AUC near 1.0). Cross-validation offered greater protection against overfitting than the other evaluation techniques, and for most classification algorithms a sample size of at least 200 was required to assess as few as 10 features with less than 0.05 AUC inflation attributable to overfitting.ConclusionThis approach could be applied to any curated dataset to suggest the number of features and analysis approaches to limit overfitting. This study demonstrates a method for quantifying the impact of overfitting on the receiving operator characteristic curve (AUC) when using standard analysis pipelines to develop imaging biomarkers. We illustrate the approach using two publicly available repositories of radiology and pathology images for breast cancer diagnosis. For each dataset, we permuted the outcome (cancer diagnosis) values to eliminate any true association between imaging features and outcome. Seven types of classification models (logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, Naïve Bayes, linear support vector machines, nonlinear support vector machine, random forest, and multi-layer perceptron) were fitted to each scrambled dataset and evaluated by each of four techniques (all data, hold-out, 10-fold cross-validation, and bootstrapping). After repeating this process for a total of 50 outcome permutations, we averaged the resulting AUCs. Any increase over a null AUC of 0.5 can be attributed to overfitting. Applying this approach and varying sample size and the number of imaging features, we found that failing to control for overfitting could result in near-perfect prediction (AUC near 1.0). Cross-validation offered greater protection against overfitting than the other evaluation techniques, and for most classification algorithms a sample size of at least 200 was required to assess as few as 10 features with less than 0.05 AUC inflation attributable to overfitting. This approach could be applied to any curated dataset to suggest the number of features and analysis approaches to limit overfitting.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».