Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Validation-selected thresholds may fail to retain their apparent error-cost advantage across imaging benchmark partitions, even with satisfactory discrimination. Objective: To examine transferability of fixed, analytical cost-based, and validation-selected classification policies in PneumoniaMNIST, with threshold-selection uncertainty and sensitivity analyses. Methods: We analyzed 5,856 28 × 28 pediatric chest radiographs (4,708 training; 524 source validation; 624 testing). Eight exact train-validation overlaps were excluded from validation procedures. A 100-component logistic baseline and compact convolutional neural network (CNN) were evaluated under four hypothetical false-negative/false-positive cost ratios. Revision-stage analyses included 500 validation-threshold resamples, 1,000 paired test resamples, exact-score threshold searches, class-composition standardization, calibration diagnostics, three CNN seeds, training-duplicate removal, and a development-role-separated sensitivity experiment. Results: Logistic and temperature-scaled CNN test AUCs were 0.921 and 0.925. At equal costs, the logistic tuned-versus-analytical loss difference was −0.0192 per image, whereas the CNN loss difference was +0.0144. CNN temperature scaling increased Brier score from 0.1303 to 0.1325 and test log loss from 0.5524 to 0.5951. At a 2:1 cost ratio, the logistic validation threshold was 0.13, with a bootstrap interval of 0.05–0.63. Conclusions: Threshold-policy gains were model- and cost-dependent, and validation selection was unstable. All new comparisons are retrospective exploratory benchmark analyses; patient-level independence and clinical utility remain unverified.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Osma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: