ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Framework for Testing Robustness of Machine Learning-Based Classifiers.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantum Machine Learning for Biomedical Classification Problems: A Feasibility Study on Real Quantum Hardware.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Physics informed machine learning for predictive toxicology and optimization of curcumin nanocarriers.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Predictive optimization of curcumin nanocomposites using hybrid machine learning and physics informed modeling.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There has been a rapid increase in the number of artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML)-based biomarker diagnostic classifiers in recent years. However, relatively little work has focused on assessing the robustness of these biomarkers, i.e., investigating the uncertainty of the AI/ML models that these biomarkers are based upon. This paper addresses this issue by proposing a framework to evaluate the already-developed classifiers with regard to their robustness by focusing on the variability of the classifiers' performance and changes in the classifiers' parameter values using factor analysis and Monte Carlo simulations. Specifically, this work evaluates (1) the importance of a classifier's input features and (2) the variability of a classifier's output and model parameter values in response to data perturbations. Additionally, it was found that one can estimate a priori how much replacement noise a classifier can tolerate while still meeting accuracy goals. To illustrate the evaluation framework, six different AI/ML-based biomarkers are developed using commonly used techniques (linear discriminant analysis, support vector machines, random forest, partial-least squares discriminant analysis, logistic regression, and multilayer perceptron) for a metabolomics dataset involving 24 measured metabolites taken from 159 study participants. The framework was able to correctly predict which of the classifiers should be less robust than others without recomputing the classifiers itself, and this prediction was then validated in a detailed analysis.
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.