arXiv preprint ·
Label-Space Mismatch Distorts Cross-Cohort Evaluation in Breast Cancer Molecular Subtyping
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Cross-cohort evaluation of breast cancer subtype classifiers is unreliable when source and target cohorts use different annotation standards: METABRIC labels six classes, PAM50 defines five, and a claudin-low prediction cannot be correct under a five-class standard. A classifier transferred from 1,369 METABRIC patients (train n=958) to TCGA-BRCA (n=987) and GSE21653 (n=266) separates three evaluation operations routinely conflated in cross-site comparisons. (1) Label-space restriction - an evaluation-rule change, not a retraining gain - is the dominant correction (73.76%->79.74% on TCGA-BRCA; 63.16%->68.42% on GSE21653); (2) EM prior correction on the reconciled space is an optional calibration step (Brier fidelity up, macro F1 down; to 80.65% and 74.06%); and (3) the target label space is not recoverable from unlabelled predictions (EM retains prior 0.0751 on the absent class; calibrated detectors fail), so compliance must come from cohort documentation. The protocol exposes why internal validation overstates cross-cohort value: multimodal fusion gains do not transfer (no configuration beats mRNA alone, n=694; McNemar p=0.13-1.00), and the genomic panel adds nothing to pathological complete response prediction over clinical variables (DeltaAUC = +0.0045). Clinically, without label-space compliance, cross-site accuracy comparisons misattribute annotation-standard differences to model skill; Luminal A/B and claudin-low boundary errors map to distinct treatment decisions; and subtype accuracy is a weaker portable endpoint than survival discrimination (external C-index 0.577-0.584). Reporting the cohort's allowed label set and applying label-space compliance are therefore prerequisites before any cross-cohort performance claim.
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.
More in Machine Learning
How Robust Are Prognostic Radiomic Features? Comparing Selection Techniques on Pooled Glioblastoma Cohorts
CADS: Measuring the Incremental Contribution of LLM Proposers in Sequential Biological Screens
Small Average Error, Wide Individual Error: General-Purpose LLMs Estimating Energy Intake from Meal Photos in a Feeding Trial
Aptamers as a sandbox for lab-in-the-loop agentic molecular discovery
Bombadil: A Foundation Model for Plant Electrophysiology
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.