arXiv preprint ·

When Participant Disjoint Validation Is Not Enough to Establish Generalization in Parkinson's Gait Classification

Md. Sifat, Sania Akter, Akif Islam and Md. Ekramul Hamid

Published
Source
arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
Original
Read it at arXiv
Topics
Machine Learning

Abstract

Participant-disjoint cross-validation prevents direct participant overlap, but it may still produce optimistic estimates when acquisition site and diagnosis are structurally dependent. We examined Parkinson's disease classification using 159 pressure-walkway summary features from 133 WearGait-PD participants, including 65 participants with Parkinson's disease and 68 controls. The cohort was non-factorial: two sites contained only one diagnostic group, whereas VA-Seattle was the only site containing both groups. In repeated participant-level nested cross-validation, site alone achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.955 plus or minus 0.003, exceeding the gait-feature model (0.882 plus or minus 0.014). Under the evaluated logistic-regression pipelines, adding gait features to site, age, and sex produced no measurable improvement in pooled discrimination. More site-controlled evaluations produced lower and imprecise estimates: VA-Seattle same-site AUC was 0.668 (95% bootstrap confidence interval 0.477 to 0.836), and the JHOC + Bayview-to-VA-Seattle transport stress test achieved 0.576 (0.375 to 0.770). Supporting within-diagnosis site-prediction and site-conditioned permutation analyses showed that the gait representation retained substantial acquisition-site structure. These findings indicate that participant-disjoint pooled validation did not isolate disease-related discrimination from site-associated variation. They encourage careful examination of site-label dependence and, where possible, support for pooled results through within-site or independent validation before broader claims are made about generalization across institutions.

The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.

Read it on ReadSearch

Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.

Already a reader? Sign in

All new papers in Machine Learning

Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.

ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.

Papers belong to their authors and publishers; every page here links to the original. All research topics