Scores That Hold, Benchmarks That Leak: Measuring Dataset Contamination in Public Brain-Tumor MRI Classification
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Automated classification of brain tumors from MRI is a heavily published application of deep learning in medical imaging, with reported accuracies on public benchmarks routinely exceeding 98%. However, accuracy does not capture a critical dimension of benchmark quality: dataset integrity, defined as the independence of test from training data at the image, patient, and acquisition-source levels. We introduce a three-layer contamination framework comprising duplicate, patient, and source-label leakage to assess the public corpora on which this literature rests. We audit the three most widely used corpora against a chest-radiograph negative control and quantify each layer's effect on measured performance across nine architectures and three evaluation conditions. Contamination is severe at every layer: 28.8% of the dominant corpus's official test split has a near-twin in its own training split, a second corpus leaks 22.3% of its test images byte-identically, 95.5% of traceable test images share a patient with training, and file-header features containing no anatomy separate tumor from no-tumor at 0.959 balanced accuracy, at parity with fine-tuned ResNet backbones. The unexpected result is that removing every identified leaked test image leaves balanced accuracy essentially unchanged: stable performance after deduplication does not establish benchmark integrity. Our findings establish dataset integrity as a distinct, measurable axis of benchmark quality that a stable leaderboard cannot certify. For biomedical research, reported accuracy on these corpora alone does not establish that a model has learned to recognize tumors rather than exploit dataset-specific cues. We release the contaminated-file lists, recovered patient identifiers, and deduplicated splits.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2026.
Builds on
17 of 31 references.
References · 17
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
- 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,364
- 2021Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer using Shifted Windowscited by 12,139
- 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,733
- 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,720
- 2019EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 6,442
- 2022A ConvNet for the 2020scited by 3,579
- 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,969
- 2019Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?cited by 1,515
- 2017A Survey on Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysiscited by 1,186
- 2018Confounding variables can degrade generalization performance of radiological deep learning modelscited by 379
5 more
- 2020Common pitfalls and recommendations for using machine learning to detect and prognosticate for COVID-19 using chest radiographs and CT scanscited by 158
- 2018Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with carecited by 91
- 2019Do We Train on Test Data? Purging CIFAR of Near-Duplicatescited by 62
- 2019Exploring large scale public medical image datasetscited by 37
- 2021How I failed machine learning in medical imaging -- shortcomings and recommendationscited by 37
Built on by
Not cited yet.