ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
CNN Sample-Size Effects Across Biomedical Datasets: A Reliability Pattern in Overfitting, Ranking, and Monotonicity.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are widely used for biomedical image classification, yet it remains unclear under which conditions training on reduced subsets of available data can provide reliable guidance during model development, how much training data is required to achieve stable and comparable performance across CNN architectures, and whether increasing the training set size always leads to improved generalization or can sometimes result in degraded performance. We study this question across four biomedical datasets (breast mammography, pediatric chest X-ray, brain tumor MRI, and skin lesion dermoscopy) using the full grid of 39 CNN architectures (1-3 convolutional layers, 16/32/64 filters) from our companion architectural study, training each configuration from scratch on seven proportions of the training data (5%, 10%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100%) over 5 independent runs per configuration, with the test set held at a fixed size across all sample-size conditions to ensure a like-for-like comparison of generalization performance. The analysis investigates three complementary aspects of sample-size sensitivity: the stabilization of the training-test generalization gap as training-set size increases, the reliability of architecture rankings obtained from reduced training fractions as a proxy for the full-dataset ranking, and the monotonicity of test performance with respect to training-set size. Taken together, the results point to a rough four-band pattern of reliability across the sampled fractions-unstable below 20% of the training set, of uncertain overfitting status between 20% and 60%, comparatively stable between 60% and 80%, and potentially counterproductive beyond 80%-while showing that this pattern is itself dataset-dependent and offers no guarantee on architecture ranking, arguing against reduced-fraction screening as a reliable shortcut for CNN architecture selection in biomedical imaging. All code and datasets are publicly released for reproducibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.