Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37266187›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2023

Implications of resampling data to address the class imbalance problem (IRCIP): an evaluation of impact on performance between classification algorithms in medical data.

Koen Welvaars, Jacobien H F Oosterhoff, Michel P J van den Bekerom, Job N Doornberg, Ernst P van Haarst, OLVG Urology Consortium, and the Machine Learning Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. So You've Got a High AUC, Now What? An Overview of Important Considerations when Bringing Machine-Learning Models from Computer to Bedside.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

6 authors.

Koen WelvaarsData Science Team, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2153-3116
Jacobien H F OosterhoffDepartment of Engineering Systems & Services, Faculty Technology Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Michel P J van den BekeromDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Job N DoornbergDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UMCG, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Ernst P van HaarstDepartment of Urology, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
OLVG Urology Consortium, and the Machine Learning Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: When correcting for the "class imbalance" problem in medical data, the effects of resampling applied on classifier algorithms remain unclear. We examined the effect on performance over several combinations of classifiers and resampling ratios. Materials and Methods: Multiple classification algorithms were trained on 7 resampled datasets: no correction, random undersampling, 4 ratios of Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE), and random oversampling with the Adaptive Synthetic algorithm (ADASYN). Performance was evaluated in Area Under the Curve (AUC), precision, recall, Brier score, and calibration metrics. A case study on prediction modeling for 30-day unplanned readmissions in previously admitted Urology patients was presented. Results: For most algorithms, using resampled data showed a significant increase in AUC and precision, ranging from 0.74 (CI: 0.69-0.79) to 0.93 (CI: 0.92-0.94), and 0.35 (CI: 0.12-0.58) to 0.86 (CI: 0.81-0.92) respectively. All classification algorithms showed significant increases in recall, and significant decreases in Brier score with distorted calibration overestimating positives. Discussion: Imbalance correction resulted in an overall improved performance, yet poorly calibrated models. There can still be clinical utility due to a strong discriminating performance, specifically when predicting only low and high risk cases is clinically more relevant. Conclusion: Resampling data resulted in increased performances in classification algorithms, yet produced an overestimation of positive predictions. Based on the findings from our case study, a thoughtful predefinition of the clinical prediction task may guide the use of resampling techniques in future studies aiming to improve clinical decision support tools.

Indexed as

ADASYNclassification algorithmsclass imbalanceresamplingRUSSMOTE

Identifiers

PMID37266187
PMCPMC10232287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.