Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36788550›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2023

Evaluation of a decided sample size in machine learning applications.

Daniyal Rajput, Wei-Jen Wang, Chun-Chuan Chen

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 163 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
163citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06877182 active not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Novel Neuroradiological Workflow for the Assisted DIAgnosis and Management of DEMentia with Artificial Intelligence

TypeobservationalSponsorIRCCS SYNLAB SDNRan2024 to 2027Enrolled80,000ConditionsAlzheimer Disease, DementiaArmsMagnetic Resonance Imaging with Contrast
NCT07695376 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

CArdiovascular Risk Assessment Via Multimodal Data Analysis Enabling Personalised Prevention Strategies Targeting MEnopausaL Women - Observational Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorBiogipuzkoa Health Research InstituteRan2026 to 2028Enrolled3,000ConditionsPerimenopause, Menopause, Cardiovascular (CV) Risk, Women (Between 30 to 60 Years Old)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

163 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Machine Learning for Predicting Stillbirth: A Systematic Review.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. The effects of applying artificial intelligence to triage in the emergency department: A systematic review of prospective studies.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

103 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daniyal RajputInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, National Central University, Zhongda Rd, No. 300, Zhongli District, Taoyuan City, 320317, Taiwan, ROC. mail2daniyal@gmail.com.
Wei-Jen WangDepartment of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Central University, Taoyuan, Taiwan, ROC.
Chun-Chuan ChenInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, National Central University, Zhongda Rd, No. 300, Zhongli District, Taoyuan City, 320317, Taiwan, ROC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn appropriate sample size is essential for obtaining a precise and reliable outcome of a study. In machine learning (ML), studies with inadequate samples suffer from overfitting of data and have a lower probability of producing true effects, while the increment in sample size increases the accuracy of prediction but may not cause a significant change after a certain sample size. Existing statistical approaches using standardized mean difference, effect size, and statistical power for determining sample size are potentially biased due to miscalculations or lack of experimental details. This study aims to design criteria for evaluating sample size in ML studies. We examined the average and grand effect sizes and the performance of five ML methods using simulated datasets and three real datasets to derive the criteria for sample size. We systematically increase the sample size, starting from 16, by randomly sampling and examine the impact of sample size on classifiers' performance and both effect sizes. Tenfold cross-validation was used to quantify the accuracy.

resultsThe results demonstrate that the effect sizes and the classification accuracies increase while the variances in effect sizes shrink with the increment of samples when the datasets have a good discriminative power between two classes. By contrast, indeterminate datasets had poor effect sizes and classification accuracies, which did not improve by increasing sample size in both simulated and real datasets. A good dataset exhibited a significant difference in average and grand effect sizes. We derived two criteria based on the above findings to assess a decided sample size by combining the effect size and the ML accuracy. The sample size is considered suitable when it has appropriate effect sizes (≥ 0.5) and ML accuracy (≥ 80%). After an appropriate sample size, the increment in samples will not benefit as it will not significantly change the effect size and accuracy, thereby resulting in a good cost-benefit ratio.

conclusionWe believe that these practical criteria can be used as a reference for both the authors and editors to evaluate whether the selected sample size is adequate for a study.

Indexed as

Machine LearningResearch DesignProbabilitySample SizeCriteriaEffect sizesMachine learningSample size

Identifiers

PMID36788550
PMCPMC9926644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.