Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34844620›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2021

Gaussian noise up-sampling is better suited than SMOTE and ADASYN for clinical decision making.

Jacqueline Beinecke, Dominik Heider

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Large-Scale Comparative Analysis of Canine and Human Osteosarcomas Uncovers Conserved Clinically Relevant Tumor Microenvironment Subtypes.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Jacqueline BeineckeDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, Philipps-University of Marburg, Hans-Meerwein-Str. 6, 35043, Marburg, Germany.
Dominik HeiderDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, Philipps-University of Marburg, Hans-Meerwein-Str. 6, 35043, Marburg, Germany. dominik.heider@uni-marburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3108-8311

Funding

LOEWE Diffusible Signals
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical data sets have very special properties and suffer from many caveats in machine learning. They typically show a high-class imbalance, have a small number of samples and a large number of parameters, and have missing values. While feature selection approaches and imputation techniques address the former problems, the class imbalance is typically addressed using augmentation techniques. However, these techniques have been developed for big data analytics, and their suitability for clinical data sets is unclear.This study analyzed different augmentation techniques for use in clinical data sets and subsequent employment of machine learning-based classification. It turns out that Gaussian Noise Up-Sampling (GNUS) is not always but generally, is as good as SMOTE and ADASYN and even outperform those on some datasets. However, it has also been shown that augmentation does not improve classification at all in some cases.

Indexed as

Clinical dataData augmentationMachine learningSynthetic data

Identifiers

PMID34844620
PMCPMC8628399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.