Impact of train/test sample regimen on performance estimate stability of machine learning in cardiovascular imaging
Abstract As machine learning research in the field of cardiovascular imaging continues to grow, obtaining reliable model performance estimates is critical to develop reliable baselines and compare different algorithms. While the machine learning community has generally accepted methods such as k-fol...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/3fbe52b623e04aa399b5b0f5b1e1ff34 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract As machine learning research in the field of cardiovascular imaging continues to grow, obtaining reliable model performance estimates is critical to develop reliable baselines and compare different algorithms. While the machine learning community has generally accepted methods such as k-fold stratified cross-validation (CV) to be more rigorous than single split validation, the standard research practice in medical fields is the use of single split validation techniques. This is especially concerning given the relatively small sample sizes of datasets used for cardiovascular imaging. We aim to examine how train-test split variation impacts the stability of machine learning (ML) model performance estimates in several validation techniques on two real-world cardiovascular imaging datasets: stratified split-sample validation (70/30 and 50/50 train-test splits), tenfold stratified CV, 10 × repeated tenfold stratified CV, bootstrapping (500 × repeated), and leave one out (LOO) validation. We demonstrate that split validation methods lead to the highest range in AUC and statistically significant differences in ROC curves, unlike the other aforementioned approaches. When building predictive models on relatively small data sets as is often the case in medical imaging, split-sample validation techniques can produce instability in performance estimates with variations in range over 0.15 in the AUC values, and thus any of the alternate validation methods are recommended. |
|---|