ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Quality metrics of synthetic radiomics data do not predict improvement under simulated external validation: an ecological fallacy across 50 public datasets.
Article in European 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate whether established synthetic data quality metrics predict when deep generative augmentation improves performance under simulated external validation in radiomics. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree conditional generators (WGAN-GP, CVAE, TabDDPM) were trained on 50 public binary-classification radiomic datasets from radMLBench. For each dataset-generator pair (n = 150), five quality metrics and ΔAUC (change in simulated external AUC under domain shift) were recorded across 10 repetitions; undefined AUCs (single-class test folds) were excluded a priori (30/2500 external, 1.2%). Six analyses tested quality-ΔAUC associations: rank correlations with FDR correction, ROC discrimination, subgroup random-effects meta-analysis, composite scoring, quality-guided generator selection, and SMOTE comparison. All experiments were replicated with a random forest classifier.
resultsPooled quality metrics correlated significantly with ΔAUC (|ρ| = 0.30-0.36, all adjusted p < 0.001); within each generator, all correlations were non-significant (all p > 0.05), revealing an ecological fallacy. After Benjamini-Hochberg correction, 5 of 20 correlations survived: the 4 pooled associations and DDPM MMD (unexpected direction). ROC-AUC ranged from 0.42 to 0.61 (near-chance). Quality-guided selection yielded a significantly negative pooled Δ (-0.0051; 95% CI: -0.0083 to -0.0019) and improved external AUC in only 17/50 (34%) datasets versus 34/50 (68%) for an oracle. Random forest replication rendered pooled correlations non-significant (all p > 0.09). A pre-specified sensitivity analysis on the 29/50 datasets statistically distinguishable from chance produced identical conclusions.
conclusionAggregate quality-performance correlations are driven by between-generator differences, not within-generator variation that could guide practical decisions. Quality metrics are insufficient proxies for clinical utility; task-specific external validation remains indispensable. KEY POINTS: Question Can established quality metrics of synthetic radiomics data identify when generative augmentation actually improves the performance of prediction models under simulated external validation? Findings Across 50 public datasets, aggregate quality-performance correlations vanished within individual generators (ecological fallacy), and quality-guided generator selection underperformed real-only training. Clinical relevance Quality metrics commonly used to validate synthetic radiomics data cannot identify when augmentation improves clinical model performance under simulated domain shift, underscoring the irreplaceable role of task-specific external validation before clinical deployment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42321417What 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.