ArticleScientific reports2021
Impact of train/test sample regimen on performance estimate stability of machine learning in cardiovascular imaging.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal prognostic modeling of individual cognitive trajectories to enhance trial efficiency in preclinical Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Trial
- Edge-Deployable Lightweight Deep Learning for Hypertensive Retinopathy Grading from En-Face OCT: A Patient-Level Feasibility Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a proposed rule for estimating central venous pressure from inferior vena cava dynamics: a clinical prediction model study.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Article
- Machine learning classification of dilated cardiomyopathy severity in commercial broiler chickens.Poultry science · 2026Article
- Measuring the optimistic bias of cross-validation in radiomics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exploring fibroblast activation protein as an early biomarker in chronic lung allograft dysfunction.The European respiratory journal · 2026Article
- Attention-based deep learning for analysis of pathology images and gene expression data in lung squamous premalignant lesions.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- Differential miRNA expression during replicative senescence of dental pulp stem cells with potential for forensic age assessment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Feasibility of short-term hospital mask demand forecasting using a backpropagation neural network under data scarcity.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Predicting the likelihood of hypoadrenocorticism in dogs using signalment and routine laboratory results with an ensemble machine learning predictive model.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based radiomics modeling of combined subcortical nuclei from quantitative susceptibility mapping for Parkinson's disease diagnosis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Combination Ensemble and Explainable Deep Learning Framework for High-Accuracy Classification of Wild Edible Macrofungi.Biology · 2025Article
- Identifying vulnerable groups of community-dwelling older adults with a strong willingness to receive volunteer services based on machine learning methods.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Insights into radiomics: a comprehensive review for beginners.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025Review
- New lung ultrasound system for rapid triage of pulmonary disease without a radiologist or sonographer.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Two-stage sampling for better survival model performance.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Predicthor: AI-Powered Predictive Risk Model for 30-Day Mortality and 30-Day Complications in Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery for Lung Cancer.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- Predicting experiences of paranoia and auditory verbal hallucinations in daily life with ambulatory sensor data - A feasibility study.Psychological medicine · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of hemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus in preterm neonates: a pioneering insight.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Prediction of sporulating Firmicutes from uncultured gut microbiota using SpoMAG, an ensemble learning tool.PeerJ · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As machine learning research in the field of cardiovascular imaging continues to grow, obtaining reliable model performance estimates is critical to develop reliable baselines and compare different algorithms. While the machine learning community has generally accepted methods such as k-fold stratified cross-validation (CV) to be more rigorous than single split validation, the standard research practice in medical fields is the use of single split validation techniques. This is especially concerning given the relatively small sample sizes of datasets used for cardiovascular imaging. We aim to examine how train-test split variation impacts the stability of machine learning (ML) model performance estimates in several validation techniques on two real-world cardiovascular imaging datasets: stratified split-sample validation (70/30 and 50/50 train-test splits), tenfold stratified CV, 10 × repeated tenfold stratified CV, bootstrapping (500 × repeated), and leave one out (LOO) validation. We demonstrate that split validation methods lead to the highest range in AUC and statistically significant differences in ROC curves, unlike the other aforementioned approaches. When building predictive models on relatively small data sets as is often the case in medical imaging, split-sample validation techniques can produce instability in performance estimates with variations in range over 0.15 in the AUC values, and thus any of the alternate validation methods are recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.