analiza aiqbench
This study exposes a critical flaw in standard validation practices for medical AI, demonstrating that participant-disjoint cross-validation can yield misleadingly high performance metrics when acquisition site and disease diagnosis are structurally dependent. The authors reveal that their gait-based Parkinson's model largely captured site-specific artifacts rather than genuine disease signals, as site alone outperformed the feature model in pooled evaluations. These findings urge researchers to prioritize within-site or independent validation protocols before claiming generalizability in heterogeneous clinical datasets.
When Participant Disjoint Validation Is Not Enough to Establish Generalization in Parkinson's Gait Classification
arXiv:2610.16220v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Participant-disjoint cross-validation prevents direct participant overlap, but it may still produce optimistic estimates when acquisition site and diagnosis are structurally dependent. We examined Parkinson's disease classification using 159 pressure-walkway summary features from 133 WearGait-PD participants, including 65 participants with Parkinson's disease and 68 controls. The cohort was non-factorial: two sites contained only one diagnostic group, whereas VA-Seattle was the only site containing both groups. In repeated participant-level nested cross-validation, site alone achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.955 plus or minus 0.003, exceeding the gait-feature model (0.882 plus or minus 0.014). Under the evaluated logistic-regression pipelines, adding gait features to site, age, and sex produced no measurable improvement in pooled discrimination. More site-controlled evaluations produced lower and imprecise estimates: VA-Seattle same-site AUC was 0.668 (95% bootstrap confidence interval 0.477 to 0.836), and the JHOC + Bayview-to-VA-Seattle transport stress test achieved 0.576 (0.375 to 0.770). Supporting within-diagnosis site-prediction and site-conditioned permutation analyses showed that the gait representation retained substantial acquisition-site structure. These findings indicate that participant-disjoint pooled validation did not isolate disease-related discrimination from site-associated variation. They encourage careful examination of site-label dependence and, where possible, support for pooled results through within-site or independent validation before broader claims are made about generalization across institutions.
Abstract:Participant-disjoint cross-validation prevents direct participant overlap, but it may still produce optimistic estimates when acquisition site and diagnosis are structurally dependent. We examined Parkinson's disease classification using 159 pressure-walkway summary features from 133 WearGait-PD participants, including 65 participants with Parkinson's disease and 68 controls. The cohort was non-factorial: two sites contained only one diagnostic group, whereas VA-Seattle was the only site containing both groups. In repeated participant-level nested cross-validation, site alone achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.955 plus or minus 0.003, exceeding the gait-feature model (0.882 plus or minus 0.014). Under the evaluated logistic-regression pipelines, adding gait features to site, age, and sex produced no measurable improvement in pooled discrimination. More site-controlled evaluations produced lower and imprecise estimates: VA-Seattle same-site AUC was 0.668 (95% bootstrap confidence interval 0.477 to 0.836), and the JHOC + Bayview-to-VA-Seattle transport stress test achieved 0.576 (0.375 to 0.770). Supporting within-diagnosis site-prediction and site-conditioned permutation analyses showed that the gait representation retained substantial acquisition-site structure. These findings indicate that participant-disjoint pooled validation did not isolate disease-related discrimination from site-associated variation. They encourage careful examination of site-label dependence and, where possible, support for pooled results through within-site or independent validation before broader claims are made about generalization across institutions.
9 pages, 5 figures. Includes supplementary analyses integrated into the appendices
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.16220 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.16220v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.16220 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 313 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
A Deep Dive into LDS Optimizations on AMD Instinct MI450 GPUs
AMD · 28 aug. 2026

Brief independent investigation of agents’ behavior, reasoning and collaboration in the OpenAI / Hugging Face hacking incident
METR · 26 aug. 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · 2 oct. 2026

Reviewing failure modes in science as we prepare for AI researchers
LessWrong · 8 oct. 2026