Cited by 252Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMachine Learning in Healthcare

Effects of dataset size and interactions on the prediction performance of logistic regression and deep learning models

Open access
Bailly, Alexandre, Blanc, Corentin, Francis, Élie, Guillotin, Thierry, Jamal, Fadi, Wakim, Béchara, Roy, Pascal·2022·Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106504

Cites

5 of 5 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

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. C. M. Bishop, Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition, Oxford University Press, Inc., USA, 1995.
  2. 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
  3. D. Li, L. Yang, Deep Learning in Natural Language Processing, 1st Edition, Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2018.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. S. Sperandei, Understanding logistic regression analysis, Biochemia Medica24 (2014) 12-18 https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2014.003. · DOI
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. D. P. Kingma, J. Ba, Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization, arXiv:1412.6980 [cs] (2017). · arXiv
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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

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
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