Generalizability of Machine Learning Models: Quantitative Evaluation of
  Three Methodological Pitfalls
  Despite the great potential of machine learning, the lack of generalizability
has hindered the widespread adoption of these technologies in routine clinical
practice. We investigate three methodological pitfalls: (1) violation of
independence assumption, (2) model evaluation with an inappropriate performance
indicator, and (3) batch effect and how these pitfalls could affect the
generalizability of machine learning models. We implement random forest and
deep convolutional neural network models using several medical imaging
datasets, including head and neck CT, lung CT, chest X-Ray, and
histopathological images, to quantify and illustrate the effect of these
pitfalls. We develop these models with and without the pitfall and compare the
performance of the resulting models in terms of accuracy, precision, recall,
and F1 score. Our results showed that violation of the independence assumption
could substantially affect model generalizability. More specifically, (I)
applying oversampling before splitting data into train, validation and test
sets; (II) performing data augmentation before splitting data; (III)
distributing data points for a subject across training, validation, and test
sets; and (IV) applying feature selection before splitting data led to
superficial boosts in model performance. We also observed that inappropriate
performance indicators could lead to erroneous conclusions. Also, batch effect
could lead to developing models that lack generalizability. The aforementioned
methodological pitfalls lead to machine learning models with over-optimistic
performance. These errors, if made, cannot be captured using internal model
evaluation, and the inaccurate predictions made by the model may lead to wrong
conclusions and interpretations. Therefore, avoiding these pitfalls is a
necessary condition for developing generalizable models.
