TY - JOUR
T1 - The harm of class imbalance corrections for risk prediction models
T2 - illustration and simulation using logistic regression
AU - van den Goorbergh, Ruben
AU - van Smeden, Maarten
AU - Timmerman, Dirk
AU - Van Calster, Ben
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.
PY - 2022/8/10
Y1 - 2022/8/10
N2 - OBJECTIVE: Methods to correct class imbalance (imbalance between the frequency of outcome events and nonevents) are receiving increasing interest for developing prediction models. We examined the effect of imbalance correction on the performance of logistic regression models.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prediction models were developed using standard and penalized (ridge) logistic regression under 4 methods to address class imbalance: no correction, random undersampling, random oversampling, and SMOTE. Model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination, calibration, and classification. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we studied the impact of training set size, number of predictors, and the outcome event fraction. A case study on prediction modeling for ovarian cancer diagnosis is presented.RESULTS: The use of random undersampling, random oversampling, or SMOTE yielded poorly calibrated models: the probability to belong to the minority class was strongly overestimated. These methods did not result in higher areas under the ROC curve when compared with models developed without correction for class imbalance. Although imbalance correction improved the balance between sensitivity and specificity, similar results were obtained by shifting the probability threshold instead.DISCUSSION: Imbalance correction led to models with strong miscalibration without better ability to distinguish between patients with and without the outcome event. The inaccurate probability estimates reduce the clinical utility of the model, because decisions about treatment are ill-informed.CONCLUSION: Outcome imbalance is not a problem in itself, imbalance correction may even worsen model performance.
AB - OBJECTIVE: Methods to correct class imbalance (imbalance between the frequency of outcome events and nonevents) are receiving increasing interest for developing prediction models. We examined the effect of imbalance correction on the performance of logistic regression models.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prediction models were developed using standard and penalized (ridge) logistic regression under 4 methods to address class imbalance: no correction, random undersampling, random oversampling, and SMOTE. Model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination, calibration, and classification. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we studied the impact of training set size, number of predictors, and the outcome event fraction. A case study on prediction modeling for ovarian cancer diagnosis is presented.RESULTS: The use of random undersampling, random oversampling, or SMOTE yielded poorly calibrated models: the probability to belong to the minority class was strongly overestimated. These methods did not result in higher areas under the ROC curve when compared with models developed without correction for class imbalance. Although imbalance correction improved the balance between sensitivity and specificity, similar results were obtained by shifting the probability threshold instead.DISCUSSION: Imbalance correction led to models with strong miscalibration without better ability to distinguish between patients with and without the outcome event. The inaccurate probability estimates reduce the clinical utility of the model, because decisions about treatment are ill-informed.CONCLUSION: Outcome imbalance is not a problem in itself, imbalance correction may even worsen model performance.
KW - Computer Simulation
KW - Humans
KW - Logistic Models
KW - Probability
KW - ROC Curve
KW - Sensitivity and Specificity
KW - calibration
KW - class imbalance
KW - logistic regression
KW - synthetic minority oversampling technique
KW - undersampling
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85134929464
U2 - 10.1093/jamia/ocac093
DO - 10.1093/jamia/ocac093
M3 - Article
C2 - 35686364
SN - 1067-5027
VL - 29
SP - 1525
EP - 1534
JO - Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
JF - Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
IS - 9
ER -