Cited by 285Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

The importance of being external. methodological insights for the external validation of machine learning models in medicine

Open access
Cabitza, Federico, Campagner, Andrea, Soares, Felipe, García de Guadiana-Romualdo, Luis, Challa, Feyissa, Sulejmani, Adela, Seghezzi, Michela, Carobene, Anna·2021·Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine

Abstract

Background and Objective Medical machine learning (ML) models tend to perform better on data from the same cohort than on new data, often due to overfitting, or co-variate shifts. For these reasons, external validation (EV) is a necessary practice in the evaluation of medical ML. However, there is still a gap in the literature on how to interpret EV results and hence assess the robustness of ML models.Methods We fill this gap by proposing a meta-validation method, to assess the soundness of EV procedures. In doing so, we complement the usual way to assess EV by considering both dataset cardinality, and the similarity of the EV dataset with respect to the training set. We then investigate how the notions of cardinality and similarity can be used to inform on the reliability of a validation procedure, by integrating them into two summative data visualizations.Results We illustrate our methodology by applying it to the validation of a state-of-the-art COVID-19 diagnostic model on 8 EV sets, collected across 3 different continents. The model performance was moderately impacted by data similarity (Pearson ρ = 0.38, p< 0.001). In the EV, the validated model reported good AUC (average: 0.84), acceptable calibration (average: 0.17) and utility (average: 0.50). The validation datasets were adequate in terms of dataset cardinality and similarity, thus suggesting the soundness of the results. We also provide a qualitative guideline to evaluate the reliability of validation procedures, and we discuss the importance of proper external validation in light of the obtained results.Conclusions In this paper, we propose a novel, lean methodology to: 1) study how the similarity between training and validation sets impacts the generalizability of a ML model; 2) assess the soundness of EV evaluations along three complementary performance dimensions: discrimination, utility and calibration; 3) draw conclusions on the robustness of the model under validation. We applied this methodology to a state-of-the-art model for the diagnosis of COVID-19 from routine blood tests, and showed how to interpret the results in light of the presented framework.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106288

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Jiangpeng Wu, Pengyi Zhang, Liting Zhang, Wenbo Meng, Junfeng Li, Chongxiang Tong, Yonghong Li, Jing Cai, Zengwei Yang, Jinhong Zhu, et al. Rapid and accurate identification of covid-19 infection through ma- chine learning based on clinical available blood test results. medRxiv, 2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cabitza, F., Campagner, A., Soares, F., García de Guadiana-Romualdo, L., Challa, F., Sulejmani, A., Seghezzi, M., & Carobene, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Milano-Bicocca (IT)
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
  • Ethiopian Public Health Institute (ET)
  • Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII (IT)
  • IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele (IT)
Corresponding author
Cabitza, Federico
Venue
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
208
Pages
106288
ISSN
0169-2607 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3183421885
Cited by
284
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 71 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 1
FWCI
28.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
external validation, machine learning in medicine, covariate shift, overfitting, generalizability, dataset similarity, model robustness, COVID-19 diagnosis, routine blood tests, discrimination (statistics), calibration, clinical utility
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review