mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Leakage-Aware Comparative Benchmark of Machine Learning, Deep Learning, and Transformer Models for Reliable Leukemia Detection

arXiv 2606.24944 ↗First posted 23 Jun 2026eess.IV cs.CVcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Automated classification of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) from peripheral blood smear images has often reported near-perfect performance on the C-NMC 2019 dataset. We show that such results can be inflated by patient-level data leakage caused by random image-level partitioning, where cells from the same subject may appear in both training and test folds. We establish a leakage-aware benchmark under a strict subject-disjoint protocol, comparing LightGBM, RBF-SVM, EfficientNet-B0, EfficientNet-B1, and ViT-Tiny. Models are developed using three subject-disjoint folds from 73 subjects and evaluated on an external preliminary-phase test set of 1,867 images from 28 unseen subjects with zero patient overlap. Beyond discrimination, we assess calibration using expected calibration error, Brier score, and temperature scaling. Under honest evaluation, EfficientNet-B1 achieves the best performance, with AUROC 0.913, sensitivity 0.87, specificity 0.80, and calibrated ECE 0.024. Frozen-feature classifiers and ViT-Tiny show high sensitivity but poor specificity, indicating a tendency to over-predict the malignant class. A random-versus-subject-disjoint ablation shows that random splitting inflates AUROC by about 0.04 even in the conservative frozen-feature setting. These findings caution against image-level evaluation on C-NMC 2019 and provide a reproducible, calibration-aware benchmark for future work.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jun 2026.

Builds on

16 of 49 references.

References · 16

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
  2. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
  3. 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,691
  4. 2019EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 6,415
  5. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  6. 2018Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with carecited by 90
  7. 2023A review of uncertainty quantification in medical image analysis: probabilistic and non-probabilistic methodscited by 39
  8. 2021How I failed machine learning in medical imaging -- shortcomings and recommendationscited by 37
  9. 2023How You Split Matters: Data Leakage and Subject Characteristics Studies in Longitudinal Brain MRI Analysiscited by 8
  10. 2020SDCT-AuxNetθ: DCT Augmented Stain Deconvolutional CNN with Auxiliary Classifier for Cancer Diagnosiscited by 7
  11. 2025False Promises in Medical Imaging AI? Assessing Validity of Outperformance Claimscited by 5
  12. 2019Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Classification from Microscopic Images using Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 4
4 more
  1. 2025Segmentation and Classification of Pap Smear Images for Cervical Cancer Detection Using Deep Learningcited by 4
  2. 2026Systematic Evaluation of Vision Transformers for Automated Cervical Cancer Classification: Optimization, Statistical Validation, and Clinical Interpretabilitycited by 3
  3. 2021Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Detection from Microscopic Images Using Weighted Ensemble of Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 1
  4. 2026Enhanced Leukemic Cell Classification Using Attention-Based CNN and Data Augmentationcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.