ArticleCroatian medical journal2022
More slices, less truth: effects of different test-set design strategies for magnetic resonance image classification.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Subtypes and Mechanisms of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Proposed by Machine Learning Algorithms.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the effects of different test-set design strategies for magnetic resonance (MR) image classification using deep learning.
methodsError rates in 10 experimental settings were assessed. The performance of pretrained models and data augmentation were examined as possible contributing factors.
resultsError rates in experimental settings using MR images of different patients for training and test sets were ten times higher than those in experimental settings using MR images of the same patients (four disease groups with whole-chest images, 46.80% vs 2.06%; four disease groups without whole-chest images, 49.09% vs 1.29%; sex classification with whole-chest images, 16.02% vs 0.96%; and sex classification without whole-chest images, 23.56% vs 0.30%). Error rates were higher when data augmentation was applied to settings that used MR images of different patients for training and test sets.
conclusionWhen deep learning is applied to MR image classification, training and test sets should consist of MR images of different patients. Models built on training and test sets consisting of images of the same patients yield optimistic error rates and lead to wrong conclusions. MR images of neighboring slices are so similar that they cause data leakage effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36046934PMC9468729What 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.