Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40594759›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

A comprehensive evaluation of oversampling techniques for enhancing text classification performance.

Salimkan Fatma Taskiran, Bahaeddin Turkoglu, Ersin Kaya, Tunc Asuroglu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Salimkan Fatma TaskiranDepartment of Computer Engineering, Konya Technical University, Konya, 42250, Turkey.
Bahaeddin TurkogluDepartment of Artificial Intelligence and Data Engineering, Ankara University, Ankara, 06830, Turkey.
Ersin KayaDepartment of Computer Engineering, Konya Technical University, Konya, 42250, Turkey.
Tunc AsurogluFaculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, 33720, Finland. tunc.asuroglu@tuni.fi.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Class imbalance is a common and critical challenge in text classification tasks, where the underrepresentation of certain classes often impairs the ability of classifiers to learn minority class patterns effectively. According to the "garbage in, garbage out" principle, even high-performing models may fail when trained on skewed distributions. To address this issue, this study investigates the impact of oversampling techniques, specifically the Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) and thirty of its variants, on two benchmark text classification datasets: TREC and Emotions. Each dataset was vectorized using the MiniLMv2 transformer model to obtain semantically rich representations, and classification was performed using six machine learning algorithms. The balanced and imbalanced scenarios were compared in terms of F1-Score and Balanced Accuracy. This work constitutes, to the best of our knowledge, the first large-scale, systematic benchmarking of SMOTE-based oversampling methods in the context of transformer-embedded text classification. Furthermore, statistical significance of the observed performance differences was validated using the Friedman test. The results provide practical insights into the selection of oversampling techniques tailored to dataset characteristics and classifier sensitivity, supporting more robust and fair learning in imbalanced natural language processing tasks.

Indexed as

Imbalanced datasetsSynthetic minority over-sampling technique (SMOTE)Text classification

Identifiers

PMID40594759
PMCPMC12217700

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.