Reporting

Naive classification beats deep-learning

Overview Mitani and co-authors’ present a deep-learning algorithm trained with retinal images and participants’ clinical data from the UK Biobank to estimate blood-haemoglobin levels and predict the presence or absence of anaemia (Mitani et al. 2020). A major limitation of the study is the inadequate evaluation of the algorithm. I will show how a naïve classification (i.e. classify everybody as healthy) performs much better than their deep-learning approach, despite their model having AUC of around 80%.

On statistical reporting in biomedical journals

Poor quality statistical reporting in the biomedical literature is not uncommon. Here is another example by Cirio et al. (2016). The study itself is well planed, executed and reported. The aim was to assess whether heated and humidified high flow gases delivered through nasal cannula (HFNC) improve exercise performance in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. It all started when I saw their Fig.1. Here is my attempt to reproduce it