ReviewBMC bioinformatics2023
A review and comparative study of cancer detection using machine learning: SBERT and SimCSE application.
Review in BMC bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- In silico models in oncology, neurology, and epidemiology: systems-level and multiscale perspectives.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026Review
- An interpretable machine learning model based on MRI radiomics and GAME score for predicting early recurrence after thermal ablation in colorectal liver metastases.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Article
- Hybrid deep learning with attention fusion for enhanced colon cancer detection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Refining cancer prediction with DNA sequencing and combined machine learning approaches.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Breast Cancer Detection Using Convolutional Neural Networks: A Deep Learning-Based Approach.Cureus · 2025Review
- Machine learning-based assessment of morphometric abnormalities distinguishes bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder.Neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Risk factors and machine learning prediction models for intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Overview and Prospects of DNA Sequence Visualization.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Radiomics and machine learning based on preoperative MRI for predicting extrahepatic metastasis in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with transarterial chemoembolization.European journal of radiology open · 2024Article
- Advancing Breast Cancer Research Through Collaborative Computing: Harnessing Google Colab for Innovation.Cureus · 2024Article
- Innovative Neuroimaging Biomarker Distinction of Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Disorder through Structural Connectome Analysis and Machine Learning Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence: clinical applications and future advancement in gastrointestinal cancers.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Review
- A comprehensive analysis of recent advancements in cancer detection using machine learning and deep learning models for improved diagnostics.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Review
- Predicting cancer treatment outcomes using machine learning enabled clinical decision support systems.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUsing visual, biological, and electronic health records data as the sole input source, pretrained convolutional neural networks and conventional machine learning methods have been heavily employed for the identification of various malignancies. Initially, a series of preprocessing steps and image segmentation steps are performed to extract region of interest features from noisy features. Then, the extracted features are applied to several machine learning and deep learning methods for the detection of cancer.
methodsIn this work, a review of all the methods that have been applied to develop machine learning algorithms that detect cancer is provided. With more than 100 types of cancer, this study only examines research on the four most common and prevalent cancers worldwide: lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Next, by using state-of-the-art sentence transformers namely: SBERT (2019) and the unsupervised SimCSE (2021), this study proposes a new methodology for detecting cancer. This method requires raw DNA sequences of matched tumor/normal pair as the only input. The learnt DNA representations retrieved from SBERT and SimCSE will then be sent to machine learning algorithms (XGBoost, Random Forest, LightGBM, and CNNs) for classification. As far as we are aware, SBERT and SimCSE transformers have not been applied to represent DNA sequences in cancer detection settings.
resultsThe XGBoost model, which had the highest overall accuracy of 73 ± 0.13 % using SBERT embeddings and 75 ± 0.12 % using SimCSE embeddings, was the best performing classifier. In light of these findings, it can be concluded that incorporating sentence representations from SimCSE's sentence transformer only marginally improved the performance of machine learning models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.