ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Lifting the radiomics performance ceiling: how preprocessing leakage amplifies model multiplicity.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo jointly quantify and causally link preprocessing leakage, analytical flexibility and the Rashomon effect in radiomics-based clinical prediction models. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective methodological (specification-curve) analysis of 50 de-identified binary-classification datasets in radMLBench (multicentre; 13 anatomical sites; CT, MRI, PET/CT; median 147 patients per dataset, range 51-969); prediction-model reporting followed CLAIM 2.0 and TRIPOD + AI 2024. We enumerated an analytical multiverse of 456 pipeline specifications (3 scalers × 2 correlation filters × 19 feature selectors × 4 classifiers), each evaluated against the dataset label by 5-fold cross-validation × 10 repetitions. Feature-level preprocessing leakage was assessed by paired global-versus-nested comparison for the synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE), normalisation, correlation filtering and principal component analysis (PCA), pooled by DerSimonian-Laird meta-analysis. Within-subjects causal mediation (43 datasets) tested whether inflation of the best area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) explains leakage-induced Rashomon-set expansion.
resultsAcross the 50 datasets, SMOTE leakage inflated AUC by a pooled 0.09 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07, 0.11; p < 0.001), exceeding 0.05 in 64%. Pipeline choice shifted AUC by 0.30, classifier dominating (eta-squared = 0.21). At ε = 5%, near-optimal pipelines disagreed on 20-30% of patient classifications (Fleiss kappa = 0.58) and shared < 30% of top features. SMOTE leakage quadrupled the Rashomon set (0.06 to 0.23; p < 0.001); 79% mediated by best-AUC inflation. Radiomics showed 4.8× wider vibration of effects (VoE) but 13× smaller Rashomon ratios than eight tabular benchmarks (both p < 0.001).
conclusionThe three sources compound; leakage amplifies model multiplicity by inflating the performance ceiling. KEY POINTS: Question Whether preprocessing leakage, analytical flexibility and the Rashomon effect jointly compromise the reproducibility of radiomics-based clinical prediction models has not been quantified. Findings Across 50 radiomics datasets, SMOTE leakage inflated AUC by 0.09 and quadrupled the Rashomon set, with 79% causally mediated by best-AUC inflation. Clinical relevance Radiomics-derived clinical prediction models routinely disagree on 20-30% of patients while appearing equally near-optimal. The released three-layer audit tool quantifies this risk per study and should precede any clinical deployment claim.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42844394What 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.