ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2024
Understanding overfitting in random forest for probability estimation: a visualization and simulation study.
Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The role of artificial intelligence in diagnostic neurosurgery: a systematic review.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Interpretable four-class machine learning prediction of initial I-131 therapy responses in differentiated thyroid cancer.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- A machine-learning model for accurate diuresis prediction in acute heart failure (DRC-AHF).ESC heart failure · 2026Article
- Toward Precision Oral Medicine in Pemphigus Vulgaris: A Conceptual AI Framework for Rituximab Response Prediction.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- [Medical prior-guided TabMap deep learning model for ovarian cancer prediction and interpretability analysis].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2026Article
- Variable selection for clinical prediction models in low-dimensional data - a simulation study comparing traditional regression and machine learning methods.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Efficacy of 3D-printed bone graft container in the treatment of tibial plateau fractures and postoperative rehabilitation prediction model.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Hybrid analysis of photovoltaic energy data containing excessive structural zeros.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Advancing Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk Prediction With Patient-Centered Machine Learning: Machine Learning Modeling Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- MERS-Mpro Predictor: A Machine Learning-Based Tool for Rapid Screening of Potential MERS-CoV Main Protease Inhibitors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Risk prediction of death and heart transplantation in adult patients with myocarditis.European heart journal open · 2026Article
- Structural determinants of pulmonary diffusing capacity identified by network analysis and machine learning on quantitative CT.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Integrating InVEST and machine learning to model mangrove habitat degradation trend in in Northern Persian Gulf, Iran.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Machine learning prediction of metabolic dysregulation in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: development and validation of hemato-inflammatory predictive models.BMC endocrine disorders · 2026Article
- Efficacy and comparative performance of machine learning models for stroke risk prediction in hypertensive patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026Review
- Wearable EEG devices in the detection of mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Interpretable machine learning model for predicting 5-Year postoperative recurrence risk in patients with stage III colon cancer using preoperative laboratory tests: a two-centre study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Machine learning-assisted Raman spectroscopy for non-destructive analysis of crude palm oil quality.NPJ science of food · 2026Article
- Machine learning to develop and validate a model for predicting the risk of lymph node metastasis in colorectal cancer patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- The crucial role of machine learning models in predicting current childhood asthma: model comparison, calibration, and SHAP-based interpretation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandom forests have become popular for clinical risk prediction modeling. In a case study on predicting ovarian malignancy, we observed training AUCs close to 1. Although this suggests overfitting, performance was competitive on test data. We aimed to understand the behavior of random forests for probability estimation by (1) visualizing data space in three real-world case studies and (2) a simulation study.
methodsFor the case studies, multinomial risk estimates were visualized using heatmaps in a 2-dimensional subspace. The simulation study included 48 logistic data-generating mechanisms (DGM), varying the predictor distribution, the number of predictors, the correlation between predictors, the true AUC, and the strength of true predictors. For each DGM, 1000 training datasets of size 200 or 4000 with binary outcomes were simulated, and random forest models were trained with minimum node size 2 or 20 using the ranger R package, resulting in 192 scenarios in total. Model performance was evaluated on large test datasets (N = 100,000).
resultsThe visualizations suggested that the model learned "spikes of probability" around events in the training set. A cluster of events created a bigger peak or plateau (signal), isolated events local peaks (noise). In the simulation study, median training AUCs were between 0.97 and 1 unless there were 4 binary predictors or 16 binary predictors with a minimum node size of 20. The median discrimination loss, i.e., the difference between the median test AUC and the true AUC, was 0.025 (range 0.00 to 0.13). Median training AUCs had Spearman correlations of around 0.70 with discrimination loss. Median test AUCs were higher with higher events per variable, higher minimum node size, and binary predictors. Median training calibration slopes were always above 1 and were not correlated with median test slopes across scenarios (Spearman correlation - 0.11). Median test slopes were higher with higher true AUC, higher minimum node size, and higher sample size.
conclusionsRandom forests learn local probability peaks that often yield near perfect training AUCs without strongly affecting AUCs on test data. When the aim is probability estimation, the simulation results go against the common recommendation to use fully grown trees in random forest models.
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.