This study's first purpose is to provide quantitative evidence that would incentivize researchers to instead use the more robust method of nested cross-validation. The second purpose is to present methods and MATLAB codes for doing power analysis for ML-based analysis during the design of a study. Monte Carlo simulations were used to quantify the interactions between the employed cross-validation method, the discriminative power of features, the dimensionality of the feature space, and the dimensionality of the model. Four different cross-validations (single holdout, 10-fold, train-validation-test, and nested 10-fold) were compared based on the statistical power and statistical confidence of the ML models. Distributions of the null and alternative hypotheses were used to determine the minimum required sample size for obtaining a statistically significant outcome ({\alpha}=0.05, 1-\b{eta}=0.8). Statistical confidence of the model was defined as the probability of correct features being selected and hence being included in the final model. Our analysis showed that the model generated based on the single holdout method had very low statistical power and statistical confidence and that it significantly overestimated the accuracy. Conversely, the nested 10-fold cross-validation resulted in the highest statistical confidence and the highest statistical power, while providing an unbiased estimate of the accuracy. The required sample size with a single holdout could be 50% higher than what would be needed if nested cross-validation were used. Confidence in the model based on nested cross-validation was as much as four times higher than the confidence in the single holdout-based model. A computational model, MATLAB codes, and lookup tables are provided to assist researchers with estimating the sample size during the design of their future studies.