Journal Browser
Search
Transferability of cost-sensitive threshold policies in pneumoniamnist: Calibration, resampling, and image-integrity sensitivity
Arvy Noleal Osma
Mark Andre Balao Andallo
Imaging and Radiation Research 2026, 9(1), 026410003; https://doi.org/10.24294/irr026410003
Submitted:11 Oct 2026
Accepted:29 Oct 2026
Published:30 Oct 2026
+
Cite This Article
Abstract

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.

References
1.Yang J, Shi R, Wei D, et al. MedMNIST v2: A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification. Scientific Data. 2023; 10: 41. doi: 10.1038/s41597-022-01721-8
2.Yang J, Shi R, Ni B. MedMNIST Classification Decathlon: A lightweight AutoML benchmark for medical image analysis. In: IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). 2021: 191–195. doi: 10.1109/ISBI48211.2021.9434062
3.Kermany DS, Goldbaum M, Cai W, et al. Identifying medical diagnoses and treatable diseases by image-based deep learning. Cell. 2018; 172(5): 1122–1131.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.010
4.Van Calster B, McLernon DJ, van Smeden M, et al. Calibration: The Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Medicine. 2019; 17: 230. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7
5.Guo C, Pleiss G, Sun Y, Weinberger KQ. On calibration of modern neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning. 2017; 70: 1321–1330. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/guo17a.html
6.Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: A framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010; 21(1): 128–138. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2
7.Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: A novel method for evaluating prediction models. Medical Decision Making. 2006; 26(6): 565–574. doi: 10.1177/0272989X06295361
8.Saito T, Rehmsmeier M. The precision-recall plot is more informative than the ROC plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets. PLOS ONE. 2015; 10(3): e0118432. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118432
9.Yang J, et al. MedMNIST+: 18× standardized datasets for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification. Zenodo, version 3.0. 2024. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10519652
10.Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall; 1993. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9
11.Collins GS, Moons KGM, Dhiman P, et al. TRIPOD+AI statement: Updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. BMJ. 2024; 385: e078378. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-078378
12.Tejani AS, Klontzas ME, Gatti AA, et al. Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): 2024 Update. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence. 2024; 6(4): e240300. doi: 10.1148/ryai.240300
© 2025 by the EnPress Publisher, LLC. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.

Copyright © by EnPress Publisher. All rights reserved.

TOP