Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39334348›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2024

Understanding overfitting in random forest for probability estimation: a visualization and simulation study.

Lasai Barreñada, Paula Dhiman, Dirk Timmerman, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Ben Van Calster

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [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 · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  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. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lasai BarreñadaDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Leuven, KU, Belgium.
Paula DhimanCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Dirk TimmermanDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Leuven, KU, Belgium.
Anne-Laure BoulesteixBiometry in Molecular Medicine, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Ben Van CalsterDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Leuven, KU, Belgium. ben.vancalster@kuleuven.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Prediction modelingRandom ForestRisk estimation

Identifiers

PMID39334348
PMCPMC11437774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.