Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42222437›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational pathology2026

Associations of Normalization and Regularization with Machine Learning Overfitting in Cross-dataset Classification of Deaths Using Transcriptomic and Clinical Data: A Secondary Analysis of Publicly Available Databases.

Fei Deng, Lanjing Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational pathology, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Fei DengDepartment of Chemical Biology, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Lanjing ZhangDepartment of Chemical Biology, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5436-887X

Funding

Screening and confirmatory machine learning for explainable modeling of non-cancer deaths in cancer patientsR37CA277812 · NCI · RUTGERS BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Lanjing Zhang · 2022 to 2026
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS R37 CA277812
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objectives: Normalization can standardize and improve machine learning (ML) performance on omics data. However, it is unclear whether normalization is associated with overfitting (i.e., worse cross-dataset performance than intra-dataset performance). Therefore, we aimed to examine associations of normalization and regularization with overfitting of ML on omics data. Methods: Using three paired transcriptomic and clinical datasets (lung adenocarcinoma: the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)/Oncology Singapore; melanoma: TCGA/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; glioblastoma: TCGA/Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium), we applied ANOVA-based gene selection methods, six normalization methods, and six ML models to classify cancer patients' deaths. Balanced accuracy (BA) and area under the curve (AUC) in intra- and cross-dataset settings were compared using inferential analyses. Results: Normalization consistently improved intra-dataset performance (median BA/AUC changes: 0.035-0.214/0.115-0.279) on all data, particularly with Z_Raw, but decreased or slightly increased cross-dataset performance (median BA/AUC changes: -0.029-0.079/0.029-0.064). Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) model without normalization consistently outperformed most of the ML models in cross-dataset testing across cancer types. ML models on all and molecular-alone data showed similar best performances. Conclusions: Normalization increases ML's intra-dataset performance and overfitting in three paired cancer transcriptomic and clinical datasets. Regularized models such as LASSO appear to mitigate overfitting and achieve robust cross-dataset performance. Therefore, cross-dataset evaluation and regularized models are recommended to assess and reduce overfitting, while normalization should be used cautiously. Adding clinical data seems to have little impact on ML models' performance. However, future work on other diseases and datasets is warranted.

Indexed as

CancerClinical featureMachine learningNormalizationOverfittingRegularizationTranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID42222437
PMCPMC13221090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.