Explaining the optimistic performance evaluation of newly proposed methods: a cross-design validation experiment

The constant development of new data analysis methods in many fields of research is accompanied by an increasing awareness that these new methods often perform better in their introductory paper than in subsequent comparison studies conducted by other researchers. We attempt to explain this discrepancy by conducting a systematic experiment that we call "cross-design validation of methods". In the experiment, we select two methods designed for the same data analysis task, reproduce the results shown in each paper, and then re-evaluate each method based on the study design (i.e., data sets, competing methods, and evaluation criteria) that was used to show the abilities of the other method. We conduct the experiment for two data analysis tasks, namely cancer subtyping using multi-omic data and differential gene expression analysis. Three of the four methods included in the experiment indeed perform worse when they are evaluated on the new study design, which is mainly caused by the different data sets. Apart from illustrating the many degrees of freedom existing in the assessment of a method and their effect on its performance, our experiment suggests that the performance discrepancies between original and subsequent papers may not only be caused by the non-neutrality of the authors proposing the new method but also by differences regarding the level of expertise and field of application.