Back

Application of class-balancing algorithms to diverse plasma metabolomics datasets using brain tumor as an example

Godlewski, A.; Solowiej, K.; Mojsak, P.; Godzien, J.; Zelkowska, J.; Kretowski, A.; Lyson, T.; Burdukiewicz, M.; Kaminski, K.; Ciborowski, M.

2026-07-07 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.07.02.735756 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Class imbalance remains a challenge in metabolomics research, where biological and technical variability can affect statistical inference and machine learning (ML) performance. Class-balancing algorithms address this issue by either increasing minority-class observations or reducing the number of majority-class samples. This study evaluated the impact of oversampling and undersampling algorithms on targeted and untargeted metabolomics datasets derived from LC-MS and GC-MS analyses of plasma samples from patients with glioblastoma, meningioma, and controls. Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) and Random Undersampling (RUS) were applied to balance the datasets, and their effects on data distribution, inter-feature correlations, and machine learning model performance were compared. RUS preserved the original feature distributions but reduced representativeness by removing the majority-class samples. In contrast, SMOTE introduced synthetic samples that altered covariance structures, increasing the risk of overfitting, particularly in small datasets (n=10). These effects diminished with larger groups (n=30), partially restoring correlations between metabolites. Model performance varied across the class-balancing algorithms. Random Forest classifiers benefited from both balancing methods, with undersampling often yielding higher F1 scores, whereas Support Vector Machine models showed reduced classification performance. These findings highlight the importance of selecting class-balancing strategies based on dataset size, analytical platform, and ML algorithm in metabolomics studies.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Analytical Chemistry
218 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
19.1%
2
Metabolites
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.3%
3
Journal of Proteome Research
234 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
11.4%
4
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
Metabolomics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
6
Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
37 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.4%
7
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
8
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 37%
2.8%
9
Analytica Chimica Acta
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
10
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.2%
11
PROTEOMICS
43 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
12
Journal of Proteomics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
13
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.4%
14
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
15
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
16
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
17
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.0%
18
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.9%
19
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
20
mSystems
394 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
21
Microbiology Spectrum
469 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.5%
22
Communications Chemistry
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%