ArticleBMC bioinformatics2026
Sample size requirements for machine learning classification of binary outcomes in bulk RNA-Seq data.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Neuroimmunome of Hepatitis Patients Associates With Disease Severity.Journal of medical virology · 2025Pooled it
- Cross-assay RNA modeling reveals cancer biomarkers.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBulk RNA sequencing data is often leveraged to build machine learning (ML)-based predictive models for classification of disease groups or subtypes, but the sample size needed to adequately train these models is unknown.
methodsWe collected 27 experimental datasets from the Gene Expression Omnibus and the Cancer Genome Atlas. In 24/27 datasets, pseudo-data were simulated using Bayesian Network Generation. Three ML algorithms were assessed: XGBoost (XGB), Random Forest (RF), and Neural Networks (NN). Learning curves were fit, and sample sizes needed to reach the full-dataset AUC minus 0.02 were determined and compared across the datasets/algorithms. Multivariable negative binomial regression models quantified relationships between dataset-level characteristics and required sample sizes within each algorithm. These models were validated in independent experimental datasets.
resultsAcross the datasets studied, median required sample sizes were 480 (XGB)/190 (RF)/269 (NN). Higher effect sizes, less class imbalance/dispersion, and less complex data were associated with lower required sample size. Validation demonstrated that predictions were accurate in new data.
conclusionsComparison of results to sample sizes obtained from differential analysis power analysis methods showed that ML methods generally required larger sample sizes. In conclusion, incorporating ML-based sample size planning alongside traditional power analysis can provide more robust results.
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.