ReviewKorean journal of radiology2026
Key Measures for Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy in Multi-Class Classification: An Overview and Simulation-Based Comparison.
Review in Korean journal of radiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent advancements in artificial intelligence have led to increased interest in predictive modeling across various domains, including medicine. Although numerous metrics have been established for binary classification, the growing adoption of multi-class systems necessitates robust evaluation measures. However, comprehensive simulation studies comparing the performance of existing multi-class metrics under diverse data conditions remain limited. In this study, we first provide a concise overview of commonly used accuracy metrics for multi-class classification. Then, we report a simulation study that systematically evaluates several diagnostic accuracy measures under a wide range of scenarios, including three- and five-class settings, balanced and imbalanced sample sizes, and different distributional assumptions for predictors. We assessed each metric's performance in terms of bias and 95% confidence interval coverage. Under balanced conditions, most metrics demonstrated stable and unbiased performance, closely approximating the true values. However, under imbalanced conditions, greater bias was observed, with the M-index and polytomous discrimination index exhibiting comparatively more stable performance across various scenarios. The micro-averaged receiver operating characteristic curve area consistently showed higher bias under class imbalance. Finally, we applied these metrics to a glioma tumor grading task using external datasets. This study provides a systematic comparison of commonly used metrics and offers practical guidance for selecting appropriate measures in multi-class classification tasks.
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.