Effects of dataset size and interactions on the prediction performance of logistic regression and deep learning models
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Machine learning and deep learning models are very powerful in predicting the presence of a disease. To achieve good predictions, those models require a certain amount of data to train on, whereas this amount i) is generally limited and difficult to obtain; and, ii) increases with the complexity of the interactions between the outcome (disease presence) and the model variables. This study compares the ways training dataset size and interactions affect the performance of those prediction models. METHODS: To compare the two influences, several datasets were simulated that differed in the number of observations and the complexity of the interactions between the variables and the outcome. A few logistic regressions and neural networks were trained on the simulated datasets and their performance evaluated by cross-validation and compared using accuracy, F1 score, and AUC metrics. RESULTS: Models trained on simulated datasets without interactions provided good results: AUC close to 0.80 with either logistic regression or neural networks. Models trained on simulated dataset with order 2 interactions led also to AUCs close to 0.80 with either logistic regression or neural networks. Models trained on simulated datasets with order 4 interactions led to AUC close to 0.80 with neural networks and 0.85 with penalized logistic regressions. Whatever the interaction order, increasing the dataset size did not significantly affect model performance, especially that of machine learning models. CONCLUSION: Machine learning models were the less influenced by the dataset size but needed interaction terms to achieve good performance, whereas deep learning models could achieve good performance without interaction terms. Conclusively, with the considered scenarios, well-specified machine learning models outperformed deep learning models.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The most prominent data quality dimension in the DL papers is amount of data, which is empirically shown to benefit performance, albeit in a saturating manner.
“The most prominent dimension is amount of data123–126,129,146–159,183–189 which is empirically shown to benefit performance, albeit in a saturating manner.”
From The METRIC-framework for assessing data quality for trustworthy AI in medicine: A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [123]
The Results (§3.2, page unavailable) state that increasing dataset size stabilized neural-network AUC but did not improve performance; §3.1 and §3.3 likewise describe stabilization rather than improvement. The paper therefore makes a contrary point to the attributed claim that more data benefited DL performance before gains saturated. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain.
Rosenblatt, F. (1958) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0042519 · Cited by 12,280 · see citing works
General Cardiovascular Risk Profile for Use in Primary Care: The Framingham Heart Study
D’Agostino, R. B., Vasan, R. S., Pencina, M. J., Wolf, P. A., Cobain, M., Massaro, J. M., & Kannel, W. B. (2008) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.107.699579 · Cited by 7,491 · see citing works
A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges
Abdar, M., Pourpanah, F., Hussain, S., Rezazadegan, D., Liu, L., Ghavamzadeh, M., Fieguth, P., Cao, X., Khosravi, A., Acharya, U. R., et al. (2021) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2021.05.008 · Cited by 2,720 · see citing works
Generalized Cross Entropy Loss for Training Deep Neural Networks with Noisy Labels
Zhang, Z., & Sabuncu, M. R. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.07836 · Cited by 1,907 · see citing works
Modern modelling techniques are data hungry: a simulation study for predicting dichotomous endpoints
van der Ploeg, T., Austin, P. C., & Steyerberg, E. W. (2014) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-137 · Cited by 809 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- C. M. Bishop, Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition, Oxford University Press, Inc., USA, 1995.
- K. J. Cios, I. Shin, Image recognition neural network: IRNN, Neurocomputing 7 (1995) 159-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/0925-2312(93)E0062-I. · DOI
- D. Li, L. Yang, Deep Learning in Natural Language Processing, 1st Edition, Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2018.
- S. I. Ayon, M. M. Islam, Diabetes prediction: A deep learning approach, International Journal of Information Engineering and Electronic Business 11 (2019) 21-27. https://doi.org/10.5815/IJIEEB.2019.02.03. · DOI
- K. Tomita, R. Nagao, H. Touge, T. Ikeuchi, H. Sano, A. Yamasaki, Y. Tohda,Deep learning facilitates the diagnosis of adult asthma, Allergology International 68 (2019) 456-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alit.2019.04.010. · DOI
- E. Nazari, A. H. Farzin, M. Aghemiri, A. Avan, M. Tara, H. Tabesh, Deep learning for acute myeloid leukemia diagnosis, Journal of Medicine and Life 13 (2020) 382. https://doi.org/10.25122/jml-2019-0090. · DOI
- M. Lewis, G. Elad, M. Beladev, G. Maor, K. Radinsky, D. Hermann, Y. Litani, T. Geller, J. M. Pines, N. l. Shapiro, J. F. Figueroa, Comparison of deep learning with traditional models to predict preventable acute care use and spending among heart failure patients, Scientific Reports 11 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80856-3. · DOI
- K. H. Zou, K. Tuncali, S. G. Silverman, Correlation and simple linear regression, Radiology 227 (2003) 617-628. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2273011499. · DOI
- S. Sperandei, Understanding logistic regression analysis, Biochemia Medica24 (2014) 12-18 https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2014.003. · DOI
- C. J. Burges, A tutorial on support vector machines for pattern recognition., Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 2 (1998) 121-167. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009715923555. · DOI
- I. Rish, et al., An empirical study of the naive bayes classifier, in: IJCAI 2001workshop on empirical methods in artificial intelligence, Vol. 3, 2001, pp. 41-46.
- P. Tsangaratos, I. Ilia, Comparison of a logistic regression and Naïve Bayesclassifier in landslide susceptibility assessments: The influence of models complexity and training dataset size, CATENA 145 (2016) 164-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.06.004. · DOI
- K. Hornik, M. Stinchcombe, H. White, Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators, Neural Networks 2 (1989) 359-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/0893- 6080(89)90020-8 · DOI · Paper page
- K. Hornik, Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks, Neural Networks 4 (1991) 251 -257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0893-6080(91)90009-T. · DOI · Paper page
- J. Hestness, S. Narang, N. Ardalani, G. Diamos, H. Jun, H. Kianinejad, M. M. A. Patwary, Y. Yang, Y. Zhou, Deep Learning Scaling is Predictable, Empirically, arXiv:1712.00409 [cs, stat] (2017). · arXiv
- A. Korotcov, V. Tkachenko, D. P. Russo, S. Ekins, Comparison of Deep Learning With Multiple Machine Learning Methods and Metrics Using Diverse Drug Discovery Data Sets, Molecular Pharmaceutics 14 (2017)4462-4475. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.7b00578. · DOI
- Y. A. LeCun, L. Bottou, G. B. Orr, K.-R. M üller, Efficient BackProp, in:G. Montavon, G. B. Orr, K.-R. M üller (Eds.), Neural Networks: Tricks ofthe Trade: Second Edition, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,2012, pp. 9-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35289-8_3. · DOI
- D. P. Kingma, J. Ba, Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization, arXiv:1412.6980 [cs] (2017). · arXiv
- X. Glorot, Y. Bengio, Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks, in: Y. W. Teh, M. Titterington (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Vol. 9 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, PMLR, Chia Laguna Resort, Sardinia, Italy, 2010, pp. 249- 256.
- Y. Zhao, E. Dantony, P. Roy, Optimism Bias Correction in Omics Studies with Big Data: Assessment of Penalized Methods on Simulated Data, OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology 23 (2019) 207-213. https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2018.0191. · DOI
- A. D. Kiureghian, O. Ditlevsen, Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter?, Structural Safety 31 (2009) 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.020. 22 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The METRIC-framework for assessing data quality for trustworthy AI in medicine: A systematic review
Schwabe, D., Becker, K., Seyferth, M., Klaß, A., & Schaeffter, T. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01196-4 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs
Chaudhari, S., Aggarwal, P., Murahari, V., Rajpurohit, T., Kalyan, A., Narasimhan, K., Deshpande, A., & Castro da Silva, B. (2026) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3743127 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bailly, A., Blanc, C., Francis, É., Guillotin, T., Jamal, F., Wakim, B., & Roy, P.
- Affiliations
- Lyon 1 Université (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Bailly, Alexandre
- Venue
- Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-01
- Volume
- 213
- Pages
- 106504
- ISSN
- 0169-2607 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3208954537
- Cited by
- 252
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 6
- FWCI
- 23.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- ANRT (2019/1373)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Keywords
- training data size, interaction terms, logistic regression, artificial neural networks, deep learning, predictive performance, simulated data, penalized logistic regression, model comparison
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Logistic Models, Neural Networks, Computer, Area Under Curve
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