Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37372925›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Ensemble Learning for Disease Prediction: A Review.

Palak Mahajan, Shahadat Uddin, Farshid Hajati, Mohammad Ali Moni

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 129 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
129citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

129 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Early predictors of persistent childhood asthma and allergic rhinitis: A machine learning study using post-hoc explainability.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Managing maternity: Moving care, not patients, using artificial intelligence (AI), internet-of-things (IOT) and point-of-care testing (POCT) devices.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

69 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

4 authors.

Palak MahajanCollege of Engineering and Science, Victoria University, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8768-6994
Shahadat UddinSchool of Project Management, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Sydney, Forest Lodge, NSW 2037, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0091-6919
Farshid HajatiCollege of Engineering and Science, Victoria University, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8573-5297
Mohammad Ali MoniSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0756-1006

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning models are used to create and enhance various disease prediction frameworks. Ensemble learning is a machine learning technique that combines multiple classifiers to improve performance by making more accurate predictions than a single classifier. Although numerous studies have employed ensemble approaches for disease prediction, there is a lack of thorough assessment of commonly used ensemble approaches against highly researched diseases. Consequently, this study aims to identify significant trends in the performance accuracies of ensemble techniques (i.e., bagging, boosting, stacking, and voting) against five hugely researched diseases (i.e., diabetes, skin disease, kidney disease, liver disease, and heart conditions). Using a well-defined search strategy, we first identified 45 articles from the current literature that applied two or more of the four ensemble approaches to any of these five diseases and were published in 2016-2023. Although stacking has been used the fewest number of times (23) compared with bagging (41) and boosting (37), it showed the most accurate performance the most times (19 out of 23). The voting approach is the second-best ensemble approach, as revealed in this review. Stacking always revealed the most accurate performance in the reviewed articles for skin disease and diabetes. Bagging demonstrated the best performance for kidney disease (five out of six times) and boosting for liver and diabetes (four out of six times). The results show that stacking has demonstrated greater accuracy in disease prediction than the other three candidate algorithms. Our study also demonstrates variability in the perceived performance of different ensemble approaches against frequently used disease datasets. The findings of this work will assist researchers in better understanding current trends and hotspots in disease prediction models that employ ensemble learning, as well as in determining a more suitable ensemble model for predictive disease analytics. This article also discusses variability in the perceived performance of different ensemble approaches against frequently used disease datasets.

Indexed as

baggingboostingdisease predictionmachine learningstackingvoting

Identifiers

PMID37372925
PMCPMC10298658

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.