Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40567695›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025

The effects of mismatched train and test data cleaning pipelines on regression models: lessons for practice.

James Nevin, Michael Lees, Paul Groth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

James NevinInformatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Michael LeesInformatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Paul GrothInformatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0183-6910

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data quality problems are present in all real-world, large-scale datasets. Each of these potential problems can be addressed in multiple ways through data cleaning. However, there is no single best data cleaning approach that always produces a perfect result, meaning that a choice needs to be made about which approach to use. At the same time, machine learning (ML) models are being trained and tested on these cleaned datasets, usually with one single data cleaning pipeline applied. In practice, however, data cleaning pipelines are updated regularly, often without retraining of production models. It is therefore common to apply different test (or production) data than the data on which the models were originally trained. The changes in these new test data and the data cleaning process applied can have potential ramifications for model performance. In this article, we show the impact that altering a data cleaning pipeline between the training and testing steps of an ML workflow can have. Through the fitting and evaluation of over 6,000 models, we find that mismatches between cleaning pipelines on training and test data can have a meaningful impact on regression model performance. Counter-intuitively, such mismatches can improve test set performance and potentially alter model selection choices.

Indexed as

Data cleaningData qualityRegression models

Identifiers

PMID40567695
PMCPMC12190241

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.