ArticleScientific reports2024
Applying oversampling before cross-validation will lead to high bias in radiomics.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Whole-axis versus odontoid process CBCT radiomics for forensic sex estimation: a retrospective paired-ROI model-development study.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Why Radiomics Rarely Reaches the Clinic: Reproducibility, Validation, and Evidence Gap-A Critical Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Role of artificial intelligence in developing predictive models for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes using CCTA adipose tissue characteristics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Review
- Comparative review of artificial intelligence for transcriptomic biomarker discovery in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Retractions of publications in radiomics: An underestimated problem?European radiology · 2026Review
- Machine learning-based individualized prediction: risk assessment of retinopathy in preterm infants at high altitude.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- A practical 10-step recipe for conducting radiomic studies.European radiology experimental · 2026Review
- Identification of Predictors of Adaptability in Older Adults Based on the Roy Adaptation Model Using Machine Learning.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comment on Iacobescu et al. Evaluating Binary Classifiers for Cardiovascular Disease Prediction: Enhancing Early Diagnostic Capabilities.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Timepoint-Specific Benchmarking of Deep Learning Models for Glioblastoma Follow-Up MRI.Cancers · 2025Article
- Automated quantification of abdominal aortic calcification using 3D nnU-Net: a novel approach to assess AAA rupture risk.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Radiomics-based classification of pediatric dental trauma in periapical radiographs: a preliminary study.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Explanation and Elaboration with Examples for METRICS (METRICS-E3): an initiative from the EuSoMII Radiomics Auditing Group.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- WaveSeekerNet: accurate prediction of influenza A virus subtypes and host source using attention-based deep learning.GigaScience · 2025Article
- Multicenter study on CT-based Radiomics for predicting severity and delayed recovery inFrontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Kolmogorov-Arnold Network in the Fault Diagnosis of Oil-Immersed Power Transformers.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence-driven radiomics: developing valuable radiomics signatures with the use of artificial intelligence.BJR artificial intelligence · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Class imbalance is often unavoidable for radiomic data collected from clinical routine. It can create problems during classifier training since the majority class could dominate the minority class. Consequently, resampling methods like oversampling or undersampling are applied to the data to class-balance the data. However, the resampling must not be applied upfront to all data because it would lead to data leakage and, therefore, to erroneous results. This study aims to measure the extent of this bias. Five-fold cross-validation with 30 repeats was performed using a set of 15 radiomic datasets to train predictive models. The training involved two scenarios: first, the models were trained correctly by applying the resampling methods during the cross-validation. Second, the models were trained incorrectly by performing the resampling on all the data before cross-validation. The bias was defined empirically as the difference between the best-performing models in both scenarios in terms of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, balanced accuracy, and the Brier score. In addition, a simulation study was performed on a randomly generated dataset for verification. The results demonstrated that incorrectly applying the oversampling methods to all data resulted in a large positive bias (up to 0.34 in AUC, 0.33 in sensitivity, 0.31 in specificity, and 0.37 in balanced accuracy). The bias depended on the data balance, and approximately an increase of 0.10 in the AUC was observed for each increase in imbalance. The models also showed a bias in calibration measured using the Brier score, which differed by up to -0.18 between the correctly and incorrectly trained models. The undersampling methods were not affected significantly by bias. These results emphasize that any resampling method should be applied correctly only to the training data to avoid data leakage and, subsequently, biased model performance and calibration.
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.