How to gain valuable insight from scarce data with Machine Learning: a post-hoc explanation tool to identify biases in biological images classification

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
Full text 3,119 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Machine learning (ML) models are effective at classifying images across various fields, including biology. However, their performance on biomedical images is often limited by the small size of available datasets that are constrained by the time-consuming and costly nature of experimental data collection. A review of the literature shows that many studies using biomedical images fail to follow ML best practices. This study focuses on regenerative medicine, which aims to promote tissue regeneration rather than scarring. To explore this process, we applied ML to a limited dataset of images of mice tissues, aiming to distinguish between regenerating and scarring samples. As expected binary classification failed to generalize to independent data. A novel SHAP-based analysis revealed that the overfitting models were based on spurious correlations including individual mice characteristics that aligned with the regeneration/scarring labels. The models appeared to be solving the binary classification task, but were in fact recognizing individuals. To investigate this behavior further, we examined the test set confusion matrix of a model trained to identify individual mice. We observed that, beyond individual recognition, individuals were grouped according to the time elapsed after injury (day 3 or 10) and the healing outcome (regeneration or scarring). We hypothesized that these groupings were based on relevant biological information captured by the model. To test this hypothesis, we successfully trained a model to classify images according to the time elapsed after injury (3 or 10 days), demonstrating that ML can extract relevant biological information when the task is aligned with what the data can actually support. Altogether, this study demonstrates that carefully examining explanations of a model is not only an effective way to unveil putative biases but also to extract relevant information from a limited dataset. Author summary Machine learning is increasingly used to analyze biomedical images, but in many experimental settings only small datasets are available, which can easily mislead powerful models. In this study, we looked at images from mice tissues, with the goal to distinguish healing by regeneration from healing by scarring. Although standard machine learning models appeared to perform well during training, they failed to generalize to new animals. By carefully analyzing model explanations, we found that the models were not learning biologically meaningful patterns of tissue repair, but instead were recognizing individual mice based on subtle image-specific signatures. Importantly, this same analysis revealed that the models did capture relevant biological information when the task was better aligned with the data, such as distinguishing early versus late stages of healing. Our results highlight how explanation methods can uncover hidden biases, prevent false conclusions, and help researchers extract meaningful biological insights even from limited and imperfect datasets. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-23T02:00:01.238055+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0