Robust machine learning challenge: An AIFM multicentric competition to spread knowledge, identify common pitfalls and recommend best practice

Michele Maddalo,Annarita Fanizzi,Nicola Lambri,Emiliano Loi,Marco Branchini,Leda Lorenzon,Alessia Giuliano,Leonardo Ubaldi,Sara Saponaro,Michele Signoriello,Federico Fadda,Gina Belmonte,Marco Giannelli,Cinzia Talamonti,Mauro Iori,Sabina Tangaro,Raffaella Massafra,Pietro Mancosu,Michele Avanzo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.104834
IF: 3.119
2024-10-22
Physica Medica
Abstract:Highlights • AI4MP-Challenge is the first AIFM multicentric experience on machine learning. • The main objective is to improve knowledge and skills of medical physicists on machine learning. • Encountered pitfalls: violation of independence assumption, computation errors, data imbalance. • Providing both cross-validation and an independent test helps to detect implementation issue. • The exclusion of non-robust features does not allow to significantly increase model stability. Purpose A novel and unconventional approach to a machine learning challenge was designed to spread knowledge, identify robust methods and highlight potential pitfalls about machine learning within the Medical Physics community. Methods A public dataset comprising 41 radiomic features and 535 patients was employed to assess the potential of radiomics in distinguishing between primary lung tumors and metastases. Each participant developed two classification models using: (i) all features (base model); (ii) only robust features (robust model). Both models were validated with cross-validation and on unseen data. The population stability index (PSI) was used as diagnostic metric for implementation issues. Performance was compared to reference. Base and robust models were compared in terms of performance and stability (coefficient of variation (CoV) of prediction probabilities). Results PSI detected potential implementation errors in 70 % of models. The dataset exhibited strong imbalance. The average Gmean (i.e. an appropriate metric for imbalance) among all participants was 0.67 ± 0.01, significantly higher than reference Gmean of 0.50 ± 0.04. Robust models performances were slightly worse than base models (p < 0.05). Regarding stability, robust models exhibited lower median CoV on training set only. Conclusion AI4MP-Challenge models overperformed the reference, significantly improving the Gmean. Exclusion of less-robust features did not improve model robustness and it should be avoided when confounding effects are absent. Other methods, like harmonization or data augmentation, should be evaluated. This study demonstrated how the collaborative effort to foster knowledge on machine learning among medical physicists, through interactive sessions and exchange of information among participants, can result in improved models. Graphical abstract Download: Download high-res image (120KB) Download: Download full-size image
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
What problem does this paper attempt to address?