Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40366867›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2025

External validation of machine learning models-registered models and adaptive sample splitting.

Giuseppe Gallitto, Robert Englert, Balint Kincses, Raviteja Kotikalapudi, Jialin Li, Kevin Hoffschlag, Ulrike Bingel, Tamas Spisak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Current research landscape and future prospects of in silico modeling approaches for atopic dermatitis.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Giuseppe GallittoCenter for Translational Neuro- and Behavioral Sciences (C-TNBS), University Medicine Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5185-0206
Robert EnglertCenter for Translational Neuro- and Behavioral Sciences (C-TNBS), University Medicine Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6421-576X
Balint KincsesCenter for Translational Neuro- and Behavioral Sciences (C-TNBS), University Medicine Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0478-6384
Raviteja KotikalapudiCenter for Translational Neuro- and Behavioral Sciences (C-TNBS), University Medicine Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4604-3367
Jialin LiCenter for Translational Neuro- and Behavioral Sciences (C-TNBS), University Medicine Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Kevin HoffschlagCenter for Translational Neuro- and Behavioral Sciences (C-TNBS), University Medicine Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Ulrike BingelCenter for Translational Neuro- and Behavioral Sciences (C-TNBS), University Medicine Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9528-3204
Tamas SpisakCenter for Translational Neuro- and Behavioral Sciences (C-TNBS), University Medicine Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2942-0821

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultivariate predictive models play a crucial role in enhancing our understanding of complex biological systems and in developing innovative, replicable tools for translational medical research. However, the complexity of machine learning methods and extensive data preprocessing and feature engineering pipelines can lead to overfitting and poor generalizability. An unbiased evaluation of predictive models necessitates external validation, which involves testing the finalized model on independent data. Despite its importance, external validation is often neglected in practice due to the associated costs.

resultsHere we propose that, for maximal credibility, model discovery and external validation should be separated by the public disclosure (e.g., preregistration) of feature processing steps and model weights. Furthermore, we introduce a novel approach to optimize the trade-off between efforts spent on model discovery and external validation in such studies. We show on data involving more than 3,000 participants from four different datasets that, for any "sample size budget," the proposed adaptive splitting approach can successfully identify the optimal time to stop model discovery so that predictive performance is maximized without risking a low-powered, and thus inconclusive, external validation.

conclusionThe proposed design and splitting approach (implemented in the Python package "AdaptiveSplit") may contribute to addressing issues of replicability, effect size inflation, and generalizability in predictive modeling studies.

Indexed as

Machine LearningHumansReproducibility of Resultsadaptive splittingexternal validationmachine learningpredictive modelingpreregistration

Identifiers

PMID40366867
PMCPMC12077397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.