Comparative Analysis of Machine-Learning Model Performance in Image Analysis: The Impact of Dataset Diversity and Size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study presents an analysis of machine-learning model performance in image analysis, with a specific focus on videolaryngoscopy procedures. The research aimed to explore how dataset diversity and size affect the performance of machine-learning models, an issue vital to the advancement of clinical artificial intelligence tools. METHODS: A total of 377 videolaryngoscopy videos from YouTube were used to create 6 varied datasets, each differing in patient diversity and image count. The study also incorporates data augmentation techniques to enhance these datasets further. Two machine-learning models, YOLOv5-Small and YOLOv8-Small, were trained and evaluated on metrics such as F1 score (a statistical measure that combines the precision and recall of the model into a single metric, reflecting its overall accuracy), precision, recall, mAP@50, and mAP@50-95. RESULTS: The findings indicate a significant impact of dataset configuration on model performance, especially the balance between diversity and quantity. The Multi-25 × 10 dataset, featuring 25 images from 10 different patients, demonstrates superior performance, highlighting the value of a well-balanced dataset. The study also finds that the effects of data augmentation vary across different types of datasets. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study emphasizes the critical role of dataset structure in the performance of machine-learning models in medical image analysis. It underscores the necessity of striking an optimal balance between dataset size and diversity, thereby illuminating the complexities inherent in data-driven machine-learning development.
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 | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".