Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33776178›Full record

ArticleAnnals of operations research2021

Handling of uncertainty in medical data using machine learning and probability theory techniques: a review of 30 years (1991-2020).

Roohallah Alizadehsani, Mohamad Roshanzamir, Sadiq Hussain, Abbas Khosravi, Afsaneh Koohestani, Mohammad Hossein Zangooei, Moloud Abdar, Adham Beykikhoshk, Afshin Shoeibi, Assef Zare and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of operations research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

15 authors.

Roohallah AlizadehsaniInstitute for Intelligent Systems Research and Innovations (IISRI), Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3069-7932
Mohamad RoshanzamirDepartment of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Fasa University, 74617-81189 Fasa, Iran.
Sadiq HussainSystem Administrator, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh, Assam 786004 India.
Abbas KhosraviInstitute for Intelligent Systems Research and Innovations (IISRI), Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Afsaneh KoohestaniInstitute for Intelligent Systems Research and Innovations (IISRI), Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Mohammad Hossein ZangooeiUniversity of Texas At Dallas, Dallas, USA.
Moloud AbdarInstitute for Intelligent Systems Research and Innovations (IISRI), Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Adham BeykikhoshkApplied Artificial Intelligence Institute, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Afshin ShoeibiComputer Engineering Department, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
Assef ZareFaculty of Electrical Engineering, Gonabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Gonabad, Iran.
Maryam PanahiazarInstitute for Computational Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Saeid NahavandiInstitute for Intelligent Systems Research and Innovations (IISRI), Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Dipti SrinivasanDept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 117576 Singapore.
Amir F AtiyaDepartment of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Cairo, 12613 Egypt.
U Rajendra AcharyaDepartment of Electronics and Computer Engineering, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the data and reaching accurate conclusions are of paramount importance in the present era of big data. Machine learning and probability theory methods have been widely used for this purpose in various fields. One critically important yet less explored aspect is capturing and analyzing uncertainties in the data and model. Proper quantification of uncertainty helps to provide valuable information to obtain accurate diagnosis. This paper reviewed related studies conducted in the last 30 years (from 1991 to 2020) in handling uncertainties in medical data using probability theory and machine learning techniques. Medical data is more prone to uncertainty due to the presence of noise in the data. So, it is very important to have clean medical data without any noise to get accurate diagnosis. The sources of noise in the medical data need to be known to address this issue. Based on the medical data obtained by the physician, diagnosis of disease, and treatment plan are prescribed. Hence, the uncertainty is growing in healthcare and there is limited knowledge to address these problems. Our findings indicate that there are few challenges to be addressed in handling the uncertainty in medical raw data and new models. In this work, we have summarized various methods employed to overcome this problem. Nowadays, various novel deep learning techniques have been proposed to deal with such uncertainties and improve the performance in decision making.

Indexed as

Bayesian inferenceClassificationFuzzy systemsMachine learningMonte Carlo simulationUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID33776178
PMCPMC7982279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.