The paper introduces a local audit method that identifies where a prediction model is miscalibrated and for whom, by grouping similar observations into ‘pockets’ using random‑forest similarity and ridge‑regression. The audit, which requires only features, outcomes, and fixed predictions, demonstrates superior detection of group‑specific errors in simulations and real synthetic data, revealing nuanced over‑ and under‑prediction patterns that overall metrics like AUC can miss.
The study evaluates whether inflammatory biomarkers can predict cognitive impairment in older Hispanic adults using interpretable machine learning on a small clinical dataset. A leakage‑safe Bernoulli/Categorical Naive Bayes model was trained on 165 participants from the Panama Aging Research Initiative, with continuous predictors discretized via supervised chi‑square and income treated categorically. The biomarker I‑309 (CCL1) emerged as the sole reliable incremental predictor, boosting ROC‑AUC from 0.630 to 0.740 and achieving statistically significant performance across repeated cross‑validation and random partitions.
By Antony Garcia, Gabrielle Britton, Alcibiades Villarreal, Diana Oviedo, Giselle Rangel, Xinming Huang
arXiv:2611.07950v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Benchmarks of class-imbalance strategies for multimodal chest X-ray (CXR) and electronic health record (EHR) prediction are often evaluated on record-l...
By Dang-Khoa Bui, Quang-Huy Tran, Minh-Khoi Nguyen-Bui, Duc-Tuan Ngo, Thanh-Trong Tran, Tuan-Khoi Nguyen, Hoang-Anh Ngo
arXiv:2606. 11267v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Data leakage -- contamination of a model with information unavailable at baseline -- is the dominant reproducibility failure in machine-learning-based science, yet detection tools require training code, external data, or domain expertise.
By Laurence A. Jacobs
arXiv:2509. 10517v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Machine learning can predict in-hospital mortality, but data privacy and the statistical heterogeneity of clinical data hamper its use.
By Rodrigo Tertulino
The paper introduces a framework that distinguishes two causes of saturation in clinical prediction: a learner gap, where the model fails to use available information, and a measurement‑channel ceiling, where the recorded variables limit performance. It provides theoretical characterizations, finite‑sample diagnostics, and empirical audits across three large cohorts, showing that well‑tuned models approach the frontier while deficient learners leave large gaps. A PRISMA‑guided synthesis across 104 tasks reveals consistent channel‑level patterns, suggesting that improving the learner or the measurement channel can audit and potentially lift performance.
By Sayeed Shafayet Chowdhury, Nusrat Jahan, Snehasis Mukhopadhyay, Shiaofen Fang, Vijay R. Ramakrishnan
Tabular foundation models are pretrained networks that predict risk from a table without fitting a model. Whether their risks are correct (calibrated) has been judged on real data, where true risk is...
The study evaluated ten chest X‑ray AI classification models on 12 datasets from six countries, focusing on image‑level classification and measuring specificity at 95% sensitivity. MAVL and MedKLIP achieved the highest specificity (≈0.37) but still produced many false positives, with performance dropping on institutional cohorts compared to public benchmarks. No single model excelled across all findings, countries, or lesion types, highlighting limited generalisability.
By Qinmei Xu, Yiheng Li, Wenya Zhao, Zihao Zhao, Chuanjun Xu, Ahmet Gorkem Er, Xianghao Zhan, Brittany Dashevsky, Mohammed Alawad, Marc von der St\"uck, Marvin Gazibari\'c, Daniel Truhn, Shunsuke Shibata, Ryosuke Horino, Mio Ito, Akio Hiwatashi, Suyu Li, Mengya Yang, Ya Liu, Zhiyuan Sun, Changsheng Zhou, Haruka Itakura, Xiao Li, Olivier Gevaert
arXiv:2607. 16253v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Machine learning-based Type 2 diabetes risk prediction models obtain good internal validation results but lose effectiveness in real-world applications due to deficient external testing and fairness assessment.
By Rajveer Singh Pall, Sameer Yadav, Siddharth Bhalerao, Sourabh Sahu, Ritu Ahluwalia, Bhaskar Awadhiya
This systematic review and meta‑analysis examined 48 machine‑learning studies that predict live‑birth outcomes after IVF/ICSI using routine clinical data. The pooled discrimination of internally validated models was an AUC of 0.814, while externally validated models had an AUC of 0.756, with no significant difference between them. Most studies (47/48) were at high or unclear risk of bias, only four assessed calibration, and none demonstrated clinical impact, leading to a low‑to‑very‑low certainty of evidence.
By Abdul Raheem Shahzad, Muhammad Zaheer Khan, Umar Ajaib, Asad Ur Rehman, Juan Deng, Ming Zhang
arXiv:2606. 10725v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Background.
By Olga Shakhmatova, Dmitrii Kriukov, Daniil Larionov, Nikita Khromov, Iaroslav Bespalov, Alexander Zolotarev, Kirill Grishchenkov, Ekaterina Ivanova, Miron Kuznetsov, Ilya Sochenkov, Elizaveta Panchenko, Artem Shelmanov, Dmitry V. Dylov
arXiv:2609.37848v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Biomedical machine learning papers often compress model performance into one headline number. That number can look like a property of the model even...
By Bhanu Prakash Vangala, Sowmya Guda, Latha Peddi, Navya Vangala