Use of Response Permutation to Measure an Imaging Dataset’s Susceptibility to Overfitting by Selected Standard Analysis Pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: This approach could be applied to any curated dataset to suggest the number of features and analysis approaches to limit overfitting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.151 | 0.355 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".