Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41513819›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

A large scale statistical analysis of quantum and classical neural networks in the medical domain.

Francesco Ghisoni, Matteo Borrotti, Paolo Mariani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Francesco GhisoniPhysics department, Università degli Studi di Pavia, Via Agostino Bassi, 6, 27100, Pavia, Italy. francesco.ghisoni01@universitadipavia.it.
Matteo BorrottiDepartment of Economics, Management and Statistics, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza dell'Ateneo, 1, 20126, Milan, Italy.
Paolo MarianiDepartment of Economics, Management and Statistics, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza dell'Ateneo, 1, 20126, Milan, Italy.

Funding

National Quantum Science Technology Institute PE0000023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Classical neural networks (NNs) have shown strong performance in medical data analysis. However, they typically require large labeled datasets and may struggle in data-scarce scenarios, common in clinical practice. Quantum Neural Networks (QNNs) have emerged as a promising alternative. This paper presents a comparative study between NNs and QNNs for heart disease prediction, addressing the limitations of current models in low-data regimes. We systematically evaluate 460 QNNs (using 11-13 qubits) and 4,480 NN architectures, analyzing key design parameters: encoding schemes, re-uploading strategies, circuit depth, and dropout (for QNNs), as well as hidden layers, neurons per layer, and dropout (for classical NNs). Top-performing models are selected for a direct comparison in terms of accuracy and sample complexity. Our results show QNNs achieve comparable accuracy and demonstrate potential advantages in data-scarce settings. Our study presents a structured and reproducible methodology for evaluating QNNs in clinical contexts, thereby supporting the broader investigation of quantum machine learning in applied healthcare domains.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerAlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningQuantum Theory

Identifiers

PMID41513819
PMCPMC12852685

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.