Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28077895›Full record

ArticleActa informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH2016

Applying Naive Bayesian Networks to Disease Prediction: a Systematic Review.

Mostafa Langarizadeh, Fateme Moghbeli

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
21.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 169 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. IntegratingCancers · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mostafa LangarizadehDepartment of Health Information Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Fateme MoghbeliDepartment of Health Information Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Iran University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNaive Bayesian networks (NBNs) are one of the most effective and simplest Bayesian networks for prediction.

objectiveThis paper aims to review published evidence about the application of NBNs in predicting disease and it tries to show NBNs as the fundamental algorithm for the best performance in comparison with other algorithms.

methodsPubMed was electronically checked for articles published between 2005 and 2015. For characterizing eligible articles, a comprehensive electronic searching method was conducted. Inclusion criteria were determined based on NBN and its effects on disease prediction. A total of 99 articles were found. After excluding the duplicates (n= 5), the titles and abstracts of 94 articles were skimmed according to the inclusion criteria. Finally, 38 articles remained. They were reviewed in full text and 15 articles were excluded. Eventually, 23 articles were selected which met our eligibility criteria and were included in this study.

resultIn this article, the use of NBN in predicting diseases was described. Finally, the results were reported in terms of Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity and Area under ROC curve (AUC). The last column in Table 2 shows the differences between NBNs and other algorithms. DISCUSSION: This systematic review (23 studies, 53,725 patients) indicates that predicting diseases based on a NBN had the best performance in most diseases in comparison with the other algorithms. Finally in most cases NBN works better than other algorithms based on the reported accuracy.

conclusionThe method, termed NBNs is proposed and can efficiently construct a prediction model for disease.

Indexed as

Naive Bayes AlgorithmsNaive Bayesian NetworkNaive Bayesian Network and disease predictionNaive Bayes Models

Identifiers

PMID28077895
PMCPMC5203736
OpenAlexW2536120357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.