Cited by 335Imbalanced Data Classification TechniquesMachine Learning and Data ClassificationData Stream Mining Techniques

A Comparative Performance Analysis of Data Resampling Methods on Imbalance Medical Data

Open access
Khushi, Matloob, Shaukat, Kamran, Alam, Talha Mahboob, Hameed, Ibrahim A., Uddin, Shahadat, Luo, Suhuai, Yang, Xiaoyan, Reyes, Maranatha Consuelo·2021·IEEE Access

Abstract

Medical datasets are usually imbalanced, where negative cases severely outnumber positive cases. Therefore, it is essential to deal with this data skew problem when training machine learning algorithms. This study uses two representative lung cancer datasets, PLCO and NLST, with imbalance ratios (the proportion of samples in the majority class to those in the minority class) of 24.7 and 25.0, respectively, to predict lung cancer incidence. This research uses the performance of 23 class imbalance methods (resampling and hybrid systems) with three classical classifiers (logistic regression, random forest, and LinearSVC) to identify the best imbalance techniques suitable for medical datasets. Resampling includes ten under-sampling methods (RUS, etc.), seven over-sampling methods (SMOTE, etc.), and two integrated sampling methods (SMOTEENN, SMOTE-Tomek). Hybrid systems include (Balanced Bagging, etc.). The results show that class imbalance learning can improve the classification ability of the model. Compared with other imbalanced techniques, under-sampling techniques have the highest standard deviation (SD), and over-sampling techniques have the lowest SD. Over-sampling is a stable method, and the AUC in the model is generally higher than in other ways. Using ROS, the random forest performs the best predictive ability and is more suitable for the lung cancer datasets used in this study. The code is available at https://mkhushi.github.io/.

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 · 10.1109/access.2021.3102399

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.

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?

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 105 · Cited by 335

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. X. Guo, Y. Yin, C. Dong, G. Yang, and G. Zhou, "On the clas s imbalance problem," in 2008 Fourth international conference on natural computation, 2008, vol. 4: IEEE, pp. 192-201.
  2. V. Ganganwar, "An overview of classification algorithms for imbalanced datasets," International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 42-47, 2012.
  3. H. Hairani, K. E. Saputro, and S. Fadli, "K-means-SMOTE untuk menangani ketidakseimbangan kelas dalam klasifikasi penyakit diabetes dengan C4. 5, SVM, dan naive Bayes," Jurnal Teknologi dan Sistem Komputer, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 89-93, 2020.
  4. K. Shaukat, S. Zaheer, and I. Nawaz, "Association rule mining: an application perspective," International Journal of Computer Science and Innovation, vol. 2015, no. 1, pp. 29-38, 2015.
  5. J. M. Johnson and T. M. J. J. o. B. D. Khoshgoftaar, "Survey on deep learning with class imbalance," vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-54, 2019.
  6. M. Buda, A. Maki, and M. A. J. N. N. Mazurowski, "A systematic study of the class imbalance problem in convolutional neural networks," vol. 106, pp. 249-259, 2018.
  7. F. Thabtah, S. Hammoud, F. Kamalov, and A. J. I. S. Gonsalves, "Data imbalance in classification: Experimental evaluation," vol. 513, pp. 429-441, 2020.

Authors
Khushi, M., Shaukat, K., Alam, T. M., Hameed, I. A., Uddin, S., Luo, S., Yang, X., & Reyes, M. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Suffolk (GB)
  • University of the Punjab (PK)
  • Virtual University of Pakistan (PK)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2021
Volume
9
Pages
109960-109975
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3189035319
Cited by
335
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 93 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 8
FWCI
17.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Data Stream Mining Techniques
Keywords
class imbalance, data resampling, lung cancer prediction, undersampling, oversampling, SMOTE, SMOTE-ENN, SMOTE-Tomek, random undersampling, logistic regression, random forest, medical data classification

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