Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34712399›Full record

ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2021

Applied machine learning in cancer research: A systematic review for patient diagnosis, classification and prognosis.

Konstantina Kourou, Konstantinos P Exarchos, Costas Papaloukas, Prodromos Sakaloglou, Themis Exarchos, Dimitrios I Fotiadis

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.7field-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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 144 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Is source data verification a valid tool to improve data quality of tumour documentation data? A critical assessment.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Predicting health-related quality of life two years post-diagnosis across seven cancer types: using machine learning to identify vulnerable patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Automated data collection in cancer care: State of play among registries in the United Kingdom and Europe.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Konstantina KourouUnit of Medical Technology and Intelligent Information Systems, Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
Konstantinos P ExarchosDept. of Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
Costas PapaloukasDept. of Biological Applications and Technology, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
Prodromos SakaloglouDept. of Precision and Molecular Medicine, Unit of Liquid Biopsy in Oncology, Ioannina University Hospital, Ioannina, Greece.
Themis ExarchosDept. of Informatics, Ionian University, Corfu, Greece.
Dimitrios I FotiadisUnit of Medical Technology and Intelligent Information Systems, Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
University of Ioannina · GRIonian University · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has recently altered the landscape of cancer research and medical oncology using traditional Machine Learning (ML) algorithms and cutting-edge Deep Learning (DL) architectures. In this review article we focus on the ML aspect of AI applications in cancer research and present the most indicative studies with respect to the ML algorithms and data used. The PubMed and dblp databases were considered to obtain the most relevant research works of the last five years. Based on a comparison of the proposed studies and their research clinical outcomes concerning the medical ML application in cancer research, three main clinical scenarios were identified. We give an overview of the well-known DL and Reinforcement Learning (RL) methodologies, as well as their application in clinical practice, and we briefly discuss Systems Biology in cancer research. We also provide a thorough examination of the clinical scenarios with respect to disease diagnosis, patient classification and cancer prognosis and survival. The most relevant studies identified in the preceding year are presented along with their primary findings. Furthermore, we examine the effective implementation and the main points that need to be addressed in the direction of robustness, explainability and transparency of predictive models. Finally, we summarize the most recent advances in the field of AI/ML applications in cancer research and medical oncology, as well as some of the challenges and open issues that need to be addressed before data-driven models can be implemented in healthcare systems to assist physicians in their daily practice.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceCancer prognosisClinical outcome predictionExplainabilityMachine learningSurvivalTransparencyTrustworthiness

Identifiers

PMID34712399
PMCPMC8523813
OpenAlexW3206214356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.