ArticleScientific reports2025
A practical evaluation of AutoML tools for binary, multiclass, and multilabel classification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- AutoML-Multiverse: An Instability-Aware Framework for Quantifying Analytic Variability in Alzheimer's Disease Machine-Learning Studies.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Cross-national predictive correlates of depressive symptoms among middle-aged and older adults with chronic conditions: an explainable machine learning analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Leveraging Explainable Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) and Metabolomics for Robust Diagnosis and Pathophysiological Insights in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in biology and medicine.Die Naturwissenschaften · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Selecting the most suitable Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) tool is pivotal for achieving optimal performance in diverse classification tasks, including binary, multiclass, and multilabel scenarios. The wide range of frameworks with distinct features and capabilities complicates this decision, necessitating a systematic evaluation. This study benchmarks sixteen AutoML tools, including AutoGluon, AutoSklearn, TPOT, PyCaret, and Lightwood, across all three classification types using 21 real-world datasets. Unlike prior studies focusing on a subset of classification tasks or a limited number of tools, we provide a unified evaluation of sixteen frameworks, incorporating feature-based comparisons, time-constrained experiments, and multi-tier statistical validation. We also compared our findings with four representative prior benchmarks to contextualize our results within the existing literature. A key contribution of our study is the in-depth assessment of multilabel classification, exploring both native and label-powerset representations and revealing that several tools lack robust multilabel capabilities. Our findings demonstrate that AutoSklearn excels in predictive performance for binary and multiclass settings, albeit at longer training times, while Lightwood and AutoKeras offer faster training at the cost of predictive performance on complex datasets. AutoGluon emerges as the best overall solution, balancing predictive accuracy with computational efficiency. Our statistical analysis-at per-dataset, across-datasets, and all-datasets levels-confirms significant performance differences among tools, highlighting accuracy-speed trade-offs in AutoML. These insights underscore the importance of aligning tool selection with specific problem characteristics and resource constraints. The open-source code and reproducible experimental protocols further ensure the study's value as a robust resource for researchers and practitioners.
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.