Impact of harmonization and oversampling methods on radiomics analysis of multi-center imbalanced datasets: application to PET-based prediction of lung cancer subtypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical imaging data frequently encounter image-generation heterogeneity and class imbalance properties, challenging strong generalized predictive performances with data-driven machine-learning methods. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of harmonization and oversampling methods on multi-center imbalanced datasets, with specific application to PET-based radiomics modeling for histologic subtype prediction in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: The retrospective study included 245 patients with adenocarcinoma (ADC) and 78 patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) from 4 centers. Utilizing 1502 radiomics features per patient, we trained, validated, and tested 4 machine-learning classifiers, to investigate the effect of no harmonization (NoH) or 4 feature harmonization methods, paired with no oversampling (NoO) or 5 oversampling methods on subtype prediction. Model performance was evaluated using the average area under the ROC curve (AUROC) and G-mean via 5 times 5-fold cross-validations. Statistical comparisons of the combined models against baseline (NoH + NoO) were performed for each fold of cross-validation using the DeLong test. RESULTS: The number of cross-combinations with both AUROC and G-mean outperforming baseline in validation and testing was 15, 4, 2, and 7 (out of 29) for random forest (RF), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), logistic regression (LR), and support vector machine (SVM), respectively. ComBat harmonization combined with oversampling (SMOTE) via RF yielded better performance than baseline (AUROC and G-mean of validation: 0.725 vs. 0.608 and 0.625 vs. 0.398; testing: 0.637 vs. 0.567 and 0.506 vs. 0.287), though statistical significances were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: Applying harmonization and oversampling methods in multi-center imbalanced datasets can improve NSCLC-subtype prediction, but the effect varies widely across classifiers. We have created open-source comparisons of harmonization and oversampling on different classifiers for comprehensive evaluations in different studies.
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 | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".