Analysis of Big Data Technology for Health Care Services

Bharat Rawal; Dinesh Samuel Sathia Raj; Longzhi Yang; Vijayakumar V

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 28 references

Analysis of Big Data Technology for Health Care Services

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This review claims that deep learning and other big-data technologies have great scope in health care, with neural networks performing well on imaging, genomics, and electronic health records.

desk verdict A survey with no new results whose only value is accurate summaries, and one of its key summaries (He et al. on transfer learning) is exactly backwards. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.03029 v1 pith:HFJP5LP5 submitted 2019-09-01 cs.CY

Dinesh Samuel Sathia Raj , Vijayakumar V , Bharat Rawal , Longzhi Yang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CY

keywords MedicalImagingMachineLearningDeepConvolutionalNeuralNetworksRecurrentLSTMTransferElectronicHealthRecords

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a review arguing that deep learning and other big-data techniques have become powerful and accurate enough to matter in health care. It surveys representative contributions in three data-rich areas — medical imaging, genomics, and electronic health records — and concludes that neural networks perform well across all three. The value the paper claims is practical: algorithms can support diagnosis, patient monitoring, and outcome prediction using the massive health data already being collected. A sympathetic reader should come away persuaded that these methods are useful and promising, and that future work should focus on learning from smaller datasets and combining models.

What carries the argument

The survey is organized around a small set of neural-network architectures that carry the evidence. Convolutional neural networks are presented as the main tool for image analysis, using shared weights and pooling to learn position-independent features. Recurrent networks — LSTM and GRU — are presented as the tool for time-dependent data such as ECG, EEG, and longitudinal electronic health records. Autoencoders, including stacked and denoising variants, are presented as the representation-learning module that compresses high-dimensional inputs before a classifier such as an SVM or shallow network makes the final prediction. Transfer learning is a recurring theme: pre-trained networks are used to overcome small medical datasets. These architectural categories, not any single formula, are what the review uses to connect each application to a method.

What would settle it

Compare the review's summary of any cited study against that study's abstract or conclusions. For example, the review says [11] showed pre-trained weights do not improve accuracy on small datasets, but the cited paper concludes the opposite; if many summaries are similarly off, the review's overall picture would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that deep learning and related big-data technologies have 'great scope' in health care because health care generates massive data and modern algorithms can reach near-human accuracy. To support this, it reviews selected applications: convolutional neural networks for lung nodule detection, U-Net for segmentation, transfer-learning CNNs for skin disease and cancer metastasis detection, CNN+LSTM hybrids for cardiac sequences, stacked autoencoders for MRI denoising and gene-expression cancer detection, DEEP/PEDLA for enhancer prediction, and recurrent or neural models for predicting heart failure, diagnosis, medication, and readmission from electronic health records. The paper itself presents no new experiments; its contribution is a structured overview concluding that neural networks, especially CNNs for images, sequence models for temporal data, and autoencoders for representation learning, are the dominant and best-performing tools surveyed.

Load-bearing premise

The review's conclusions stand on its one-sentence summaries of each cited study being accurate, because it offers no independent experiments or further evidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reviewed results generalize, automated CNN-based screening tools could handle routine image-reading tasks such as lung nodule detection, skin disease classification, and cancer-metastasis detection with accuracy near that of trained professionals.
Sequence models trained on electronic health records could become practical for predicting heart failure, future diagnoses, medication needs, and hospital readmission, giving clinicians early-warning signals.
Autoencoders could provide a way to build compact patient representations from high-dimensional EHR data, making downstream prediction feasible even when labeled outcomes are scarce.
Hybrid architectures that combine CNNs with temporal models would let one system exploit both spatial image structure and time, as in cardiac video analysis.
If the paper's future-research forecast is right, progress will shift toward methods that learn from small medical datasets and toward multi-model or cross-domain combinations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural testable extension the review does not perform is to benchmark transfer learning specifically on medical imaging datasets; its own comments suggest medical images differ enough from ImageNet that pre-trained features may help less than in natural-image tasks.
If the reviewed accuracy figures hold under clinical validation, deep learning could move from assistant roles toward triage in high-volume imaging and record review, but that step depends on prospective clinical studies the review does not cover.
Readers should treat the review's one-line descriptions of each cited paper as pointers rather than quotations; verifying a few original abstracts would be enough to tell whether the survey's overall optimism is well supported.
The apparent tension inside the review about pre-training — one source reportedly seeing no accuracy benefit on small datasets while another sees minimal gain — could be resolved by a direct comparison of pre-trained versus from-scratch training on a medical dataset.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a survey paper, no new methods, no new data, no synthesis beyond 'neural networks work well in healthcare.' That by itself is not disqualifying for a review, but the paper's entire value rests on the accuracy of its one-paragraph summaries of other people's work. And at least one of those summaries is a direct inversion of the source.

The He et al. summary in Section 3 says pre-trained weights give accuracy 'no worse than training from scratch' on small datasets and don't prevent overfitting. The cited paper (arXiv:1811.08883) concludes the opposite: pre-training helps when the target dataset is small, and can hurt when the target dataset is large. A reader relying on this survey would come away with wrong guidance on transfer learning. That's a load-bearing error, not a typo.

The Apple Watch claim in the introduction—that it can 'detect heart attacks'—is also unsupported. The wearable detects atrial fibrillation, not heart attacks, and conflating the two is the kind of overstatement that a review should be correcting, not repeating. There are smaller issues too, like calling Skwark et al. 'Swark' in the running text.

To be fair, the paper does some things okay. The background sections on CNNs, RNNs, SVMs, and autoencoders are textbook-level and mostly correct. Several summaries—U-Net, Esteva et al., Choi et al.—are broadly faithful. The table of methods is a handy index. If you know nothing at all about medical deep learning, you could get a rough map from this paper, as long as you stayed away from the transfer-learning paragraph.

But that's a serious caveat. The paper is promoted as an 'analysis' but has no original evaluation or critical comparison. The conclusion is a generic statement that neural networks perform well. The authors did not seem to engage carefully with the papers they cite, and the one place where they try to make a critical point about transfer learning, they get it wrong.

For whom is this? Possibly an undergraduate looking for a starting bibliography, but even they should be told to go read the primary papers. As a scholarly contribution, it does not meet a publishable bar. I would desk-reject this without sending it to referees; the central purpose of the paper is undermined by the factual inversion, and there is no original contribution that would justify the reviewer time.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper is a narrative survey of machine learning and big data methods in healthcare, organized into three application domains: medical imaging, genomics, and electronic health records. The authors describe a selection of techniques (CNNs, RNNs/LSTMs, SVMs, autoencoders, transfer learning) and summarize roughly a dozen representative papers in each domain. The central claim is that these methods are powerful, accurate, and have 'great scope' in healthcare, with future research likely focusing on small-data regimes and hybrid models.

Significance. Should the summaries be accurate, the paper would serve as a compact entry point for non-specialist readers, and Table 1 provides a convenient digest of methods and references. The paper does not claim original results, and it provides no machine-checked proofs, code, or empirical evaluations; its contribution is entirely the selection and synthesis of prior work. That contribution is currently compromised because at least one key summary inverts the cited paper's conclusion and another unsupported claim in the introduction is factually wrong. As a result, the paper in its current form cannot be relied upon as a guide to the literature.

major comments (2)

[Section 3, paragraph on transfer learning (He et al. [11])] The text states that pre-trained weights 'might help speed up convergence' but that 'the accuracy of the network is no worse than training from scratch on even small datasets with around 10,000 images,' and that pre-training does not prevent overfitting except in a few cases. This is the opposite of the finding in arXiv:1811.08883, whose abstract states that pre-training improves accuracy on small datasets and can hurt on large ones. Because this paragraph is the only discussion of transfer learning in the imaging section and the error appears in the summary table's implied guidance, it is a load-bearing misrepresentation. The paragraph should be rewritten to state the actual conclusion, and the implications for medical imaging should be reconciled with the paper's own conclusion in Section 6 that small-data learning is an important future direction.
[Section 1, Introduction] The claim that 'Apple's latest smart watch can detect heart attacks' is false. The Apple Watch's FDA-cleared ECG and irregular-rhythm notification features detect atrial fibrillation; they do not diagnose myocardial infarction. Since this claim is made without citation and is used to motivate the pervasiveness of smart wearables in healthcare, it should be corrected or removed.

minor comments (6)

[Section 2.3, Eq. (2)] The regularizer is written as 'λ||W 2||' and should read 'λ||W||²'; there is also a sign mismatch between the hyperplane definitions Wᵀx − b = ±1 and the hinge loss in Eq. (1).
[Section 3] The text says 'ISIB EM segmentation challenge' but the correct acronym is ISBI (International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging).
[Section 4 and Table 1] The name 'Swark et al.' appears in the text and table, but reference [27] is Skwark et al.; the spelling should match the reference list.
[Section 5] The phrase 'Electric health records' should be 'Electronic health records'.
[Section 2.4] The explanation of autoencoders with equal input and hidden sizes is unclear; the statement that the learned weights become 'essentially linear' should be rephrased or supported.
[General] The manuscript contains numerous language and typographical issues (e.g., 'activites,' 'an eternity in today's age') and informal statements that should be tightened.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a literature review with no derivations, fitted parameters, or self-referential predictions to reduce.

full rationale

This manuscript is a survey of external work in medical imaging, genomics, and electronic health records. It makes no original models, equations, or predictions of its own, so there is no derivation chain whose output could be equivalent to its input by construction. The central claim that deep learning and big data technologies have great scope in health care is supported by citing third-party results, not by the authors' own fitted parameters or self-citations. Correctness concerns, such as the Section 3 summary of He et al. that appears to invert that paper's conclusion about pre-training on small datasets, are accuracy issues in summarizing external sources rather than circular reasoning, and per the reviewing rules they belong outside the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters, no new entities, and no original derivations. Its only dependencies are the correctness of standard ML background and the accurate representation of the cited papers, the latter being questionable.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption The standard descriptions of CNN, RNN, LSTM, GRU, SVM, and autoencoder architectures are correct and sufficient.
Section 2 presents these techniques as background; the survey assumes these textbook explanations are adequate.
domain assumption The results reported in the cited papers are accurately described by the authors.
The review's value depends on faithful representation of each cited study; this assumption is partially violated, e.g., the inversion of He et al. in Section 3.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of Big Data Technology for Health Care Services." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HFJP5LP5

@misc{pith2026190903029,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of Big Data Technology for Health Care Services},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HFJP5LP5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.03029}
}

read the original abstract

Deep learning and other big data technologies have over time become very powerful and accurate. There are algorithms and models developed that have near human accuracy in their task. In health care, the amount of data available is massive and hence, these technologies have a great scope in health care. This paper reviews a few interesting contributions to the field specifically to medical imaging, genomics and patient health records.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.03029 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Typical CNN architecture with convolutions, pooling(subsampling) and fully connected layers. pooled using functions like mean or max further reduce the number of parameters to be learnt and also promote translational invariance. 2.2 Sequence Models With time dependent data like electrocardiograms (ECG) and electroencephalograms (EEG) making up a large part of medical data, recurrent neural networks play an importan… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Pictorial representation of a simple RNN 2.3 Support Vector Machines A support vector machine (SVM) is a supervised learning algorithm, proposed by Cortes et al.[7] in 1995, mainly used for two class classification. An SVM builds a hyper plane with the maximum margin to separate data. Assume data points from the first class are labelled 1 and those from the second class are labelled -1. Now, hyper-planes for these t… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

Bengio, Y ., Lamblin, P., Popovici, D., Larochelle, H.: Greedy layer-wise training of deep networks. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. pp. 153–160. NIPS’06, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA (2006), http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2976456.2976476

arXiv 2006
[2]

Medical Image Analysis 42, 145 – 159 (2017)

Benou, A., Veksler, R., Friedman, A., Raviv, T.R.: Ensemble of expert deep neural networks for spatio-temporal denoising of contrast-enhanced mri sequences. Medical Image Analysis 42, 145 – 159 (2017). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2017.07.006, http: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361841517301147

work page doi:10.1016/j.media.2017.07.006 2017
[3]

Journal of artiﬁcial intelligence research 16, 321–357 (2002)

Chawla, N.V ., Bowyer, K.W., Hall, L.O., Kegelmeyer, W.P.: Smote: synthetic minority over- sampling technique. Journal of artiﬁcial intelligence research 16, 321–357 (2002)

work page 2002
[4]

CoRR abs/1406.1078 (2014), http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.1078

Cho, K., van Merrienboer, B., G¨ulc ¸ehre, C ¸., Bougares, F., Schwenk, H., Bengio, Y .: Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. CoRR abs/1406.1078 (2014), http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.1078

arXiv 2014
[5]

In: Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference

Choi, E., Bahadori, M.T., Schuetz, A., Stewart, W.F., Sun, J.: Doctor ai: Predicting clinical events via recurrent neural networks. In: Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference. pp. 301–318 (2016)

work page 2016
[6]

Medical Concept Representation Learning from Electronic Health Records and its Application on Heart Failure Prediction

Choi, E., Schuetz, A., Stewart, W.F., Sun, J.: Medical concept representation learning from electronic health records and its application on heart failure prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.03686 (2016)

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[7]

Machine learning20(3), 273–297 (1995)

Cortes, C., Vapnik, V .: Support-vector networks. Machine learning20(3), 273–297 (1995)

work page 1995
[8]

In: PACIFIC SYMPOSIUM ON BIOCOMPUTING 2017

Danaee, P., Ghaeini, R., Hendrix, D.A.: A deep learning approach for cancer detection and relevant gene identiﬁcation. In: PACIFIC SYMPOSIUM ON BIOCOMPUTING 2017. pp. 219–229. World Scientiﬁc (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 28 references

[9]

Nature542(7639), 115 (2017)

Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R.A., Ko, J., Swetter, S.M., Blau, H.M., Thrun, S.: Dermatologist-level classiﬁcation of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature542(7639), 115 (2017)

2017
[10]

IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 62(11), 2693–2701 (Nov 2015)

Gao, X., Lin, S., Wong, T.Y .: Automatic feature learning to grade nuclear cataracts based on deep learning. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 62(11), 2693–2701 (Nov 2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2015.2444389

2015
[11]

CoRRabs/1811.08883 (2018), http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.08883

He, K., Girshick, R.B., Doll´ar, P.: Rethinking imagenet pre-training. CoRRabs/1811.08883 (2018), http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.08883

2018 arXiv
[12]

Neural Comput

Hochreiter, S., Schmidhuber, J.: Long short-term memory. Neural Comput. 9(8), 1735– 1780 (Nov 1997). https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735

1997 doi
[13]

Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 57, 50 – 61 (2017)

Janowczyk, A., Basavanhally, A., Madabhushi, A.: Stain normaliza- tion using sparse autoencoders (stanosa): Application to digital pathol- ogy. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 57, 50 – 61 (2017). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2016.05.003, http...

2017 doi
[14]

In: MLMI@MICCAI (2016)

Kawahara, J., Hamarneh, G.: Multi-resolution-tract cnn with hybrid pretrained and skin-lesion trained layers. In: MLMI@MICCAI (2016)

2016
[15]

Nucleic acids research 43(1), e6–e6 (2014)

Kleftogiannis, D., Kalnis, P., Bajic, V .B.: Deep: a general computational framework for predicting enhancers. Nucleic acids research 43(1), e6–e6 (2014)

2014
[16]

In: Ourselin, S., Joskowicz, L., Sabuncu, M.R., Unal, G., Wells, W

Kong, B., Zhan, Y ., Shin, M., Denny, T., Zhang, S.: Recognizing end-diastole and end-systole frames via deep temporal regression network. In: Ourselin, S., Joskowicz, L., Sabuncu, M.R., Unal, G., Wells, W. (eds.) Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MI...

2016
[17]

Scientiﬁc reports 6, 28517 (2016)

Liu, F., Li, H., Ren, C., Bo, X., Shu, W.: Pedla: predicting enhancers with a deep learning- based algorithmic framework. Scientiﬁc reports 6, 28517 (2016)

2016
[18]

CoRR abs/1703.02442 (2017), http: //arxiv.org/abs/1703.02442

Liu, Y ., Gadepalli, K., Norouzi, M., Dahl, G.E., Kohlberger, T., Boyko, A., Venugopalan, S., Timofeev, A., Nelson, P.Q., Corrado, G.S., Hipp, J.D., Peng, L., Stumpe, M.C.: Detecting cancer metastases on gigapixel pathology images. CoRR abs/1703.02442 (2017), http: //arxiv.org...

2017 arXiv
[19]

IEEE Trans- actions on Medical Imaging 14(4), 711–718 (Dec 1995)

Lo, S..B., Lou, S..A., Jyh-Shyan Lin, Freedman, M.T., Chien, M.V ., Mun, S.K.: Artiﬁcial convolution neural network techniques and applications for lung nodule detection. IEEE Trans- actions on Medical Imaging 14(4), 711–718 (Dec 1995). https://doi.org/10.1109/42.476112

1995 doi
[20]

In: Advances in neural information processing systems

Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G.S., Dean, J.: Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In: Advances in neural information processing systems. pp. 3111–3119 (2013)

2013
[21]

CoRR abs/1606.04797 (2016), http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1606.04797

Milletari, F., Navab, N., Ahmadi, S.: V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. CoRR abs/1606.04797 (2016), http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1606.04797

2016 arXiv
[22]

Scientiﬁc reports 6, 26094 (2016)

Miotto, R., Li, L., Kidd, B.A., Dudley, J.T.: Deep patient: an unsupervised representation to predict the future of patients from the electronic health records. Scientiﬁc reports 6, 26094 (2016)

2016
[23]

IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics 21(1), 22–30 (2016)

Nguyen, P., Tran, T., Wickramasinghe, N., Venkatesh, S.: Deepr: a convolutional net for medical records. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics 21(1), 22–30 (2016)

2016
[24]

In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP)

Pennington, J., Socher, R., Manning, C.: Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP). pp. 1532–1543 (2014)

2014
[25]

CoRR abs/1902.07208 (2019), http:// arxiv.org/abs/1902.07208

Raghu, M., Zhang, C., Kleinberg, J.M., Bengio, S.: Transfusion: Understanding transfer learning with applications to medical imaging. CoRR abs/1902.07208 (2019), http:// arxiv.org/abs/1902.07208

2019 arXiv
[26]

In: Navab, N., Hornegger, J., Wells, W.M., Frangi, A.F

Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In: Navab, N., Hornegger, J., Wells, W.M., Frangi, A.F. (eds.) Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015. pp. 234–241. Springer International...

2015
[27]

PLoS computational biology 10(11), e1003889 (2014)

Skwark, M.J., Raimondi, D., Michel, M., Elofsson, A.: Improved contact predictions using the recognition of protein like contact patterns. PLoS computational biology 10(11), e1003889 (2014)

2014
[28]

CoRRabs/1409.4842 (2014), http: //arxiv.org/abs/1409.4842

Szegedy, C., Liu, W., Jia, Y ., Sermanet, P., Reed, S.E., Anguelov, D., Erhan, D., Vanhoucke, V ., Rabinovich, A.: Going deeper with convolutions. CoRRabs/1409.4842 (2014), http: //arxiv.org/abs/1409.4842

2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

Bengio, Y ., Lamblin, P., Popovici, D., Larochelle, H.: Greedy layer-wise training of deep networks. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. pp. 153–160. NIPS’06, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA (2006), http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2976456.2976476

arXiv 2006

[2] [2]

Medical Image Analysis 42, 145 – 159 (2017)

Benou, A., Veksler, R., Friedman, A., Raviv, T.R.: Ensemble of expert deep neural networks for spatio-temporal denoising of contrast-enhanced mri sequences. Medical Image Analysis 42, 145 – 159 (2017). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2017.07.006, http: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361841517301147

work page doi:10.1016/j.media.2017.07.006 2017

[3] [3]

Journal of artiﬁcial intelligence research 16, 321–357 (2002)

Chawla, N.V ., Bowyer, K.W., Hall, L.O., Kegelmeyer, W.P.: Smote: synthetic minority over- sampling technique. Journal of artiﬁcial intelligence research 16, 321–357 (2002)

work page 2002

[4] [4]

CoRR abs/1406.1078 (2014), http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.1078

Cho, K., van Merrienboer, B., G¨ulc ¸ehre, C ¸., Bougares, F., Schwenk, H., Bengio, Y .: Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. CoRR abs/1406.1078 (2014), http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.1078

arXiv 2014

[5] [5]

In: Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference

Choi, E., Bahadori, M.T., Schuetz, A., Stewart, W.F., Sun, J.: Doctor ai: Predicting clinical events via recurrent neural networks. In: Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference. pp. 301–318 (2016)

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Medical Concept Representation Learning from Electronic Health Records and its Application on Heart Failure Prediction

Choi, E., Schuetz, A., Stewart, W.F., Sun, J.: Medical concept representation learning from electronic health records and its application on heart failure prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.03686 (2016)

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[7] [7]

Machine learning20(3), 273–297 (1995)

Cortes, C., Vapnik, V .: Support-vector networks. Machine learning20(3), 273–297 (1995)

work page 1995

[8] [8]

In: PACIFIC SYMPOSIUM ON BIOCOMPUTING 2017

Danaee, P., Ghaeini, R., Hendrix, D.A.: A deep learning approach for cancer detection and relevant gene identiﬁcation. In: PACIFIC SYMPOSIUM ON BIOCOMPUTING 2017. pp. 219–229. World Scientiﬁc (2017)

work page 2017