Six Models, Six Winners: Split Variance in Clinical Machine Learning Comparisons
编号:132
访问权限:仅限参会人
更新:2026-11-10 16:51:50 浏览:13次
Online
摘要
Clinical machine learning papers routinely compare several models on one train/test split and report the winner. We measured what that winner is worth. On six public clinical datasets we ran six standard classifiers over 200 stratified splits each. On the Cleveland heart disease data all six models won at least one split, and the best-on-average model won only 34% of them. One model's AUROC ranged from 0.832 to 0.961 across splits while the six models' average AUROCs spanned 0.021, so the noise was six times the signal. From the same data one split supports the claim that random forest beats logistic regression by 0.045 and another supports the reverse by 0.052. The chance that one split reverses the published order follows Φ(−z), with z the gap divided by the standard deviation of the paired difference; observed and predicted rates agreed to within 0.04 on four of five non-degenerate datasets. Drawing ten splits and keeping the best gained a median 0.040 AUROC on heart disease, nearly twenty times the real gap between the top two models. Not every benchmark behaves this way: on Framingham, where logistic regression leads by 0.031, it won 99% of splits. Five-fold cross-validation cut the estimator's standard deviation to a median 23% of a single split and repeated five-fold to 14%, lifting winner agreement on heart disease from 0.53 to 0.83. The standardised gap costs nothing to compute, and reporting it would tell a reader whether the ranking means anything.
关键词
model comparison, benchmarking, cross-validation, clinical prediction, evaluation variance, reproducibility, AUROC, machine learning in medicine,model comparison,benchmarking,Cross validation,clinical prediction,evaluation variance,AUROC,machine learning,
稿件作者
Karan Tejpal
Treasure AI
Simar Preet Singh
Bennet University
发表评论