ArticleScientific reports2026
Instability and performance limits of convolutional neural networks on non-sequential medical tabular data: an empirical investigation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have shown outstanding performance in image recognition, but their application to non-sequential tabular data remains debatable. This study investigates the architectural sensitivity of CNNs when applied to non-sequential medical datasets and compares their performance with multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) under various structural settings. Three publicly available medical tabular datasets were used: integrative clinical and CT feature dataset (iCTCF), Breast Cancer Wisconsin Diagnostic (BCWD), and UCI Heart Disease (UCI-HD). We systematically varied the number of kernels, kernel sizes, and fully connected (FC) nodes in a 1D-CNN architecture and compared the classification performance with that of MLP models, while conducting 1,000 feature-order permutation experiments to quantify order sensitivity under randomized structural settings. Effect-size statistics were computed to describe class separability; no feature filtering was performed. Across permutations, MLPs demonstrated superior stability with significantly tighter dispersion than CNNs across all datasets. While CNNs achieved peak AUROCs comparable to (BCWD: 0.987 vs. 0.986) or higher than (iCTCF: 0.739 vs. 0.681) MLPs in certain configurations, they exhibited greater performance variability and a distinct negative skew, reflecting high sensitivity to feature ordering. In UCI-HD, the peak AUROC favored MLP (0.878 vs. 0.829). Post-hoc analyses confirmed that CNN performance is highly contingent on structural hyperparameters—particularly kernel size—rather than robust feature learning. CNN performance on tabular data is heavily dependent on arbitrary feature ordering and structural design, posing risks of stochastic degradation. Clinical AI applications using such data must prioritize stability over peak performance and account for the lack of inherent spatial structure in tabular inputs.
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.