Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 109 references

Challenges and proposed solutions in modeling multimodal medical data: A systematic review

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 69-study systematic review maps the five recurring technical obstacles in multimodal medical data modeling to the solution families researchers have proposed.

desk verdict A useful challenge-oriented review of multimodal medical ML, but its solution map cites at least two studies outside the claimed 69-study corpus, and the PRISMA accounting needs reconciliation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06945 v5 pith:ZXHM5AVQ submitted 2025-05-11 cs.LG stat.ML

Maryam Farhadizadeh , Maria Weymann , Michael Bla{ss} , Johann Kraus , Christopher Gundler , Sebastian Walter , Noah Hempen , Hannah Bast
show 2 more authors
Harald Binder Nadine Binder
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords multimodaldatafusionsystematicreviewmissingmodalitiessmallinterpretabilitydimensionalityimbalancestrategiesmedicalmachinelearning
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 systematic review argues that modeling medical data from multiple modalities—imaging, genomics, electronic health records, wearables—is held back by five recurring technical obstacles: missing modalities, small datasets, interpretability, imbalance in dimensionality across modalities, and choosing the optimal fusion strategy. Across 69 included studies it collects the solution families proposed for each obstacle, such as generative imputation for missing data, transfer learning and knowledge distillation for small data, attention and gradient-based attribution for interpretability, weighted losses for dimensional imbalance, and neural architecture search for fusion design. A sympathetic reader should take the review's central contribution to be a usable challenge-to-solution map: if a practitioner faces one of these five problems, the review points to the approaches already tried and to the gaps where methods are scarce. The review also reports distributional facts about the field, including that neurology and oncology dominate the literature and that intermediate fusion is the most common strategy.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the challenge-to-solution taxonomy: five categories (missing modalities, small data, interpretability, imbalance in dimensionality, optimal fusion strategy) into which the 69 studies are sorted, with each study's proposed technique attached to the challenge it targets. Around this sits the four-way fusion taxonomy—early, intermediate, late, and hybrid fusion—which the review uses to characterize how studies combine modalities. The taxonomy does the work of converting a scattered literature into lookup entries: for each obstacle it names the solution families tried, the medical domains where they appear, and the combinations of modalities most often studied.

What would settle it

Run the same review with the title restriction and the word 'challenges' removed, extending the search past October 2023 and including multimodal imaging, audio, and video studies; if this broader search yields additional challenge categories, changes the relative prevalence of the five, or uncovers solution families absent from the 69 studies, the review's map is incomplete. A cheaper check is to count how many of the 712 excluded records that lack the word 'challenges' in the title still report missing-modal, small-data, or interpretability methods.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the difficulties of multimodal medical modeling are not idiosyncratic: they fall into five named technical challenges, and the reviewed literature supplies identifiable solution families for each. Missing modalities are addressed by multitask learning, matrix completion, VAE- and GAN-based imputation, masked autoencoders, and knowledge distillation from modality-specific teachers. Small data is tackled with augmentation, transfer learning, distillation, and simulation-based knowledge transfer, though the review finds these remain resource-dependent. Interpretability is served by attention mechanisms, gradient-weighted class activation mapping, Shapley values, and biologically structured networks, but is the thinnest solution set. Dimensional imbalance is managed by weighted and focal losses, dimensionality reduction, and intermediate fusion. Optimal fusion is approached through adaptive weighting, attention, and neural architecture search over early, intermediate, late, and hybrid fusion. The review's claim is that these mappings are systematic and that the field's progress is uneven, with interpretability and truly small-data solutions the least mature.

Load-bearing premise

The review assumes that the 69 studies found by its search—requiring 'model fusion', 'data fusion', or 'multimodal' in the title, the term 'challenges' in the query, and coverage only through October 2023—are representative enough of multimodal medical modeling that the five challenge categories and their solution families reflect the field's actual distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A practitioner facing entirely missing modalities in a clinical dataset can go directly to the review's solution families: multitask learning per subset, matrix completion, VAE/GAN imputation, masked autoencoders, or knowledge distillation without imputation.
  • Teams with small datasets will find augmentation, transfer learning, and distillation, but the review implies these are partial fixes because they depend on pretrained models or large external corpora that clinical settings often lack.
  • Interpretability is the least-served challenge among the five; the field has fewer established tools for explaining decisions that fuse heterogeneous modalities.
  • Fusion design is treated as an active optimization problem: adaptive weighting and neural architecture search are the emerging answers to the question of when to fuse at data, representation, or decision level.
  • Imaging-plus-clinical and imaging-plus-genomic pairs dominate the 69 studies, while combinations involving wearables or three modalities are rare.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the search had not required the word 'challenges' or a fusion/multimodal term in the title, the prevalence counts would likely shift; many papers solve these problems without framing them as challenges, so the five-way taxonomy may undercount some solution families.
  • Editorial inference: the review's uneven solution densities suggest a concrete research program—benchmark the missing-modality and small-data methods against each other on shared incomplete multimodal datasets, since the review catalogs options but does not rank them.
  • Editorial inference: dimensional imbalance and class imbalance are treated as distinct, but they likely interact; weighted and focal losses might transfer between them, since both are cases of one modality or class dominating training.
  • Editorial inference: the rarity of interpretability tools for multimodal models points to a testable gap—explainability methods built for single modalities may not capture cross-modal attribution, so new evaluation metrics for multimodal explanations would be needed.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This systematic review claims to synthesize 69 studies on modeling multimodal medical data, using a PubMed search plus a manual Google Scholar sweep through late 2023. The authors identify five recurring technical challenges—missing modalities, small datasets, interpretability, imbalance in dimensionality, and selection of the optimal fusion strategy—and map reported solutions to each challenge, including transfer learning, generative models, attention mechanisms, knowledge distillation, and neural architecture search. The synthesis is organized around a challenge-to-solution table (Table 3) and supplemented by distributions of fusion strategies, medical domains, modality combinations, and performance metrics. The paper positions itself as the first challenge-oriented systematic map of methods for multimodal medical modeling.

Significance. If the synthesis is reliable, the paper has practical value as a challenge-oriented reference for practitioners and a gap analysis for researchers, complementing existing modality- or fusion-centric reviews. The authors provide a reproducible search query (Table A1), a dual-screening protocol, and a per-study extraction table, and they state limitations about search coverage and the deep-learning skew of the retrieved literature. The main quantitative claims, however, depend on the representativeness of the 69-study corpus and on the internal consistency of the PRISMA accounting; both need correction before the review can be used as a trustworthy map of the field.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods/Results, Figure 2] The PRISMA flow diagram does not reconcile with the reported inclusion count. Figure 2 shows 84 records screened full-text, 82 reports assessed for eligibility after 2 reports were not retrieved, 5 studies removed (3 video recordings, 2 retracted papers), and 24 studies excluded, yielding 58 included. The arithmetic is 82 − 5 − 24 = 53 (or 84 − 2 − 5 − 24 = 53), not 58. Please clarify at which stage the 5 removed studies were excluded and correct the diagram or the counts, because the central claim "69 studies" depends on this accounting.
  2. [Challenges and solutions, Interpretability and Optimal fusion technique] Solution families attributed to the reviewed corpus are partly drawn from studies that are not among the 69 included studies. In the "Interpretability" section, Jiang et al. [96] (AUTOSurv) is discussed together with the included Hao et al. [30] as addressing the black-box problem in survival analysis, but [96] is absent from Table 3 and postdates the October 2023 search cutoff. In the "Optimal fusion technique" section, after the statement "A total of 13 studies in our review identified finding the optimal fusion strategy as a challenge," the text introduces Xu et al. [102] (MUFASA) as an example, and [102] is also absent from Table 3. To preserve the internal consistency of the systematic review, these references must either be explicitly labeled as external context or be removed from the prevalence-based narrative; the challenge counts and the gap analysis should be recomputed from the included studies only.
  3. [Methods, Search strategy and Table A1] The search design strongly shapes the prevalence counts that are presented as descriptive of the field. The PubMed query requires the word "challenges" (line 4 of Table A1) and title-level occurrence of "model fusion," "data fusion," or "multimodal" (line 1), and the manual Google Scholar sweep is not documented with the same transparency. Studies that address missing modalities, small data, or fusion selection without framing them as "challenges," or that use other vocabulary in the title, are systematically excluded. The reported percentages such as 15/69 and 17/69 are therefore prevalence within a query-defined corpus, not prevalence in the literature. Please either add a sensitivity analysis without the "challenges" restriction or explicitly reframe the quantitative claims as descriptive of the retrieved set rather than of the field.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, last paragraph] The roadmap sentence says the remainder is organized with Section 6 for methodology, Section 6 for challenges, Section 6 for discussion, and Section 6 for conclusion; these placeholders should be replaced with the actual section numbers.
  2. [References] Reference [81] appears to be a duplicate of reference [74] (both list Xu et al., "Explainable Dynamic Multimodal Variational Autoencoder for the Prediction of Patients With Suspected Central Precocious Puberty"); one entry should be removed and the in-text citations adjusted.
  3. [Figure 2] The four "Studies excluded" categories each show n=6, but two of the labels ("Do not address Modeling challenge" and "Do not address any challenge") are nearly indistinguishable; clarify the distinction so the exclusion flow is interpretable.
  4. [Table 4 / Figure 4] The modality-combination counts in Table 4 and Figure 4 should be cross-checked for consistency; for example, the triple combination "Imaging + Genomic + Clinical" is shown with count 3 in the figure while the table groups studies in a way that is easy to misread. Please align the two displays or add an explicit note on how multi-task rows are counted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the five challenge categories are a coding frame with an 'Other' bucket, and the solution maps are a synthesis rather than a mathematical derivation; the out-of-corpus citations are a reporting inconsistency, not a circle.

full rationale

This systematic review makes no quantitative prediction and contains no fitted parameters, equations, or derivation chain that could be circular. The five challenge categories are introduced in the data-extraction section as an a priori coding frame ('We identified five main technical challenges in modeling multimodal data: (i) missing entire modalities and incomplete datasets, (ii) small data (data sparsity), (iii) interpretability, (iv) imbalance in dimensionality, and (v) identifying the optimal fusion technique'), and the Results then report frequencies within that frame. This is taxonomy application, not equivalence-by-construction: the extraction also includes an 'Other' category, and Table 2 shows many studies coded as 'Other', so the five named categories are not forced by definition. The search's requirement that the term 'challenges' appear in the query and that 'multimodal', 'model fusion', or 'data fusion' appear in titles is a selection-bias concern, not circularity. I checked the skeptic's specific examples: Jiang et al. [96] and Xu et al. [102] are discussed in the Interpretability and Optimal-fusion sections and are not among the 69 rows of Table 3; [96] also postdates the October 2023 search cutoff. That is an internal-consistency/scope problem, because the review sometimes illustrates a solution family with external work while claiming to synthesize 69 studies, but it is not a circular reduction: the review's conclusions do not derive from those references in the sense of being definitionally equivalent to them. The paper's own limitations section concedes coverage limits and the post-search evolution of the field, and it also notes that the deep-learning emphasis is 'by result, rather than by design.' No self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, ansatz-via-citation pattern, or fitted-input-called-prediction appears. Under the stated standard, the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No quantitative model or derivation is presented. The review depends on the representativeness of its search, the validity of its self-imposed challenge categories, and the accuracy of authors' self-reported challenges. There are no free parameters or invented entities.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The 69 retrieved studies are representative of the broader literature on multimodal medical modeling.
    The search is restricted to PubMed and manual Google Scholar, requires multimodal or fusion terms in the title and 'challenges' in the query, and excludes reviews and audio/video-only studies; all prevalence claims inherit these restrictions.
  • ad hoc to paper The five pre-defined challenge categories are the correct organizing taxonomy.
    The taxonomy is introduced by the authors during data extraction and used to classify studies, so the counts of studies addressing each challenge are partly a product of the coding scheme.
  • domain assumption Challenges reported in the included papers reflect actual methodological difficulties.
    The review takes each paper's stated challenge at face value without an independent quality or risk-of-bias assessment of the included studies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Challenges and proposed solutions in modeling multimodal medical data: A systematic review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZXHM5AVQ

@misc{pith2026250506945,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Challenges and proposed solutions in modeling multimodal medical data: A systematic review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZXHM5AVQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06945}
}
read the original abstract

Multimodal data modeling has emerged as a powerful approach in clinical research, enabling the integration of diverse data types such as imaging, genomics, wearable sensors, and electronic health records. Despite its potential to improve diagnostic accuracy and support personalized care, modeling such heterogeneous data presents significant technical challenges. This systematic review synthesizes findings from 69 studies to identify common obstacles, including missing modalities, limited sample sizes, dimensionality imbalance, interpretability issues, and finding the optimal fusion techniques. We highlight recent methodological advances, such as transfer learning, generative models, attention mechanisms, and neural architecture search that offer promising solutions. By mapping current trends and innovations, this review provides a comprehensive overview of the field and offers practical insights to guide future research and development in multimodal modeling for medical applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [96]

    Autosurv: interpretable deep learning framework for cancer survival analysis incorporating clinical and multi-omics data

    Jiang L, Xu C, Bai Y, Liu A, Gong Y, Wang YP, et al. Autosurv: interpretable deep learning framework for cancer survival analysis incorporating clinical and multi-omics data. NPJ Precision Oncology. 2024;8(1):4. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group UK London

    work page 2024

  2. [30]

    Interpretable deep neural network for cancer survival analysis by integrating genomic and clinical data

    Hao J, Kim Y, Mallavarapu T, Oh JH, Kang M. Interpretable deep neural network for cancer survival analysis by integrating genomic and clinical data. BMC medical genomics. 2019;12(10):1–13. Publisher: BioMed Central

    2019

  3. [102]

    Mufasa: Multimodal fusion architecture search for electronic health records

    Xu Z, So DR, Dai AM. Mufasa: Multimodal fusion architecture search for electronic health records. vol. 35; 2021. p. 10532–10540. Issue: 12

    work page 2021

  4. [81]

    Explainable dynamic multimodal vari- ational autoencoder for the prediction of patients with suspected central precocious puberty

    Xu Y, Liu X, Pan L, Mao X, Liang H, Wang G, et al. Explainable dynamic multimodal vari- ational autoencoder for the prediction of patients with suspected central precocious puberty. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics. 2021;26(3):1362–1373. Publisher: IEEE

    2021

  5. [74]

    Explainable Dynamic Multimodal Variational Autoencoder for the Prediction of Patients With Suspected Central Precocious Puberty

    Xu Y, Liu X, Pan L, Mao X, Liang H, Wang G, et al. Explainable Dynamic Multimodal Variational Autoencoder for the Prediction of Patients With Suspected Central Precocious Puberty. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics. 2022 Mar;26(3):1362–1373. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2021.3103271

    arXiv 2022

  6. [1]

    Artificial intelligence-based methods for fusion of electronic health records and imaging data

    Mohsen F, Ali H, El Hajj N, Shah Z. Artificial intelligence-based methods for fusion of electronic health records and imaging data. Scientific Reports. 2022;12(1):17981. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group UK London

    2022

  7. [2]

    Multimodal biomedical AI

    Acosta JN, Falcone GJ, Rajpurkar P, Topol EJ. Multimodal biomedical AI. Nature Medicine. 2022;28(9):1773–1784

    2022

  8. [3]

    Multimodal deep learning for biomedical data fusion: a review

    Stahlschmidt SR, Ulfenborg B, Synnergren J. Multimodal deep learning for biomedical data fusion: a review. Briefings in Bioinformatics. 2022;23(2):bbab569. Publisher: Oxford University Press

    2022

Show all 109 references
  1. [4]

    A variational information bottleneck approach to multi-omics data integration

    Lee C, Van der Schaar M. A variational information bottleneck approach to multi-omics data integration. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR

  2. [5]

    Effective Techniques for Multimodal Data Fusion: A Comparative Analysis

    Paw lowski M, Wr´ oblewska A, Sysko-Roma´ nczuk S. Effective Techniques for Multimodal Data Fusion: A Comparative Analysis. Sensors. 2023;23(5):2381. Publisher: MDPI

    2023

  3. [6]

    A review on multimodal medical image fusion: Compendious analysis of medical modalities, multimodal databases, fusion techniques and quality metrics

    Azam MA, Khan KB, Salahuddin S, Rehman E, Khan SA, Khan MA, et al. A review on multimodal medical image fusion: Compendious analysis of medical modalities, multimodal databases, fusion techniques and quality metrics. Computers in biology and medicine. 2022 May;144:105253. Plac...

    2022

  4. [7]

    Advances in multimodal data fusion in neuroimaging: Overview, challenges, and novel orientation

    Zhang YD, Dong Z, Wang SH, Yu X, Yao X, Zhou Q, et al. Advances in multimodal data fusion in neuroimaging: Overview, challenges, and novel orientation. An international journal on information fusion. 2020 Dec;64:149–187. Place: Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. inffus.20...

    2020 doi

  5. [8]

    An overview of deep learning methods for multimodal medical data mining

    Behrad F, Abadeh MS. An overview of deep learning methods for multimodal medical data mining. Expert Systems with Applications. 2022;200:117006. Publisher: Elsevier. 34

    2022

  6. [9]

    Fusion of medical imaging and electronic health records using deep learning: a systematic review and implementation guidelines

    Huang SC, Pareek A, Seyyedi S, Banerjee I, Lungren MP. Fusion of medical imaging and electronic health records using deep learning: a systematic review and implementation guidelines. NPJ digital medicine. 2020;3(1):136. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group UK London

    2020

  7. [10]

    A survey of multimodal information fusion for smart healthcare: Mapping the journey from data to wisdom

    Shaik T, Tao X, Li L, Xie H, Vel´ asquez JD. A survey of multimodal information fusion for smart healthcare: Mapping the journey from data to wisdom. Information Fusion. 2023;p. 102040

    2023

  8. [11]

    The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

    Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

    2020 doi

  9. [12]

    Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis framework from incomplete multimodal data using convolutional neural networks

    Abdelaziz M, Wang T, Elazab A. Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis framework from incomplete multimodal data using convolutional neural networks. Journal of biomedical informatics. 2021 Sep;121:103863. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2021.103863

    2021

  10. [13]

    Addressing the missing data challenge in multi-modal datasets for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease

    Aghili M, Tabarestani S, Adjouadi M. Addressing the missing data challenge in multi-modal datasets for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of neuroscience methods. 2022 Jun;375:109582. Place: Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2022.109582

    2022

  11. [14]

    MixEHR-Guided: A guided multi-modal topic modeling approach for large-scale automatic phenotyping using the electronic health record

    Ahuja Y, Zou Y, Verma A, Buckeridge D, Li Y. MixEHR-Guided: A guided multi-modal topic modeling approach for large-scale automatic phenotyping using the electronic health record. Journal of biomedical informatics. 2022 Oct;134:104190. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2022

  12. [15]

    A kernel machine method for detecting higher order interactions in multimodal datasets: Application to schizophrenia

    Alam MA, Lin HY, Deng HW, Calhoun VD, Wang YP. A kernel machine method for detecting higher order interactions in multimodal datasets: Application to schizophrenia. Journal of neuroscience methods. 2018 Nov;309:161–174. Place: Netherlands. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2...

    2018 doi

  13. [16]

    Time-Aware Multi-Type Data Fusion Representation Learning Framework for Risk Prediction of Cardiovascular Diseases

    An Y, Tang K, Wang J. Time-Aware Multi-Type Data Fusion Representation Learning Framework for Risk Prediction of Cardiovascular Diseases. IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics. 2021 Oct;PP. Place: United States. https://doi. org/10.1109/TCBB.2021.3118418

    2021

  14. [17]

    Deep Learning-Based Multimodal Data Fusion: Case Study in Food Intake Episodes Detection Using Wearable Sensors

    Bahador N, Ferreira D, Tamminen S, Kortelainen J. Deep Learning-Based Multimodal Data Fusion: Case Study in Food Intake Episodes Detection Using Wearable Sensors. JMIR 35 mHealth and uHealth. 2021 Jan;9(1):e21926. Place: Canada. https://doi.org/10.2196/21926

    2021 doi

  15. [18]

    Multimodal Data Analysis of Alzheimer’s Disease Based on Clus- tering Evolutionary Random Forest

    Bi XA, Hu X, Wu H, Wang Y. Multimodal Data Analysis of Alzheimer’s Disease Based on Clus- tering Evolutionary Random Forest. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics. 2020 Oct;24(10):2973–2983. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2020.2973324

    2020

  16. [19]

    Joint Multi-Modal Longitudinal Regression and Classification for Alzheimer’s Disease Prediction

    Brand L, Nichols K, Wang H, Shen L, Huang H. Joint Multi-Modal Longitudinal Regression and Classification for Alzheimer’s Disease Prediction. IEEE transactions on medical imaging. 2020 Jun;39(6):1845–1855. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2019.2958943

    2020

  17. [20]

    Harnessing multimodal data integration to advance precision oncology

    Boehm KM, Khosravi P, Vanguri R, Gao J, Shah SP. Harnessing multimodal data integration to advance precision oncology. Nature reviews Cancer. 2022 Feb;22(2):114–126. Place: England. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-021-00408-3

    2022 doi

  18. [21]

    A multimodal transformer to fuse images and metadata for skin disease classification

    Cai G, Zhu Y, Wu Y, Jiang X, Ye J, Yang D. A multimodal transformer to fuse images and metadata for skin disease classification. The Visual computer. 2022 May;p. 1–13. Place: Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00371-022-02492-4

    2022 doi

  19. [22]

    FDTrans: Frequency Domain Transformer Model for predicting subtypes of lung cancer using multimodal data

    Cai M, Zhao L, Hou G, Zhang Y, Wu W, Jia L, et al. FDTrans: Frequency Domain Transformer Model for predicting subtypes of lung cancer using multimodal data. Computers in biology and medicine. 2023 May;158:106812. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106812

    2023

  20. [23]

    Deep adversarial learning for multi-modality missing data completion

    Cai L, Wang Z, Gao H, Shen D, Ji S. Deep adversarial learning for multi-modality missing data completion. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. London, UK: ACM; 2018. p. 1158–1166

    2018

  21. [24]

    The need for multimodal health data modeling: A practical approach for a federated- learning healthcare platform

    Cremonesi F, Planat V, Kalokyri V, Kondylakis H, Sanavia T, Miguel Mateos Resinas V, et al. The need for multimodal health data modeling: A practical approach for a federated- learning healthcare platform. Journal of biomedical informatics. 2023 May;141:104338. Place: United S...

    2023

  22. [25]

    DE-JANet: A unified network based on dual encoder and joint attention for Alzheimer’s disease classification using multi-modal data

    Dai Y, Zou B, Zhu C, Li Y, Chen Z, Ji Z, et al. DE-JANet: A unified network based on dual encoder and joint attention for Alzheimer’s disease classification using multi-modal data. Computers in biology and medicine. 2023 Oct;165:107396. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10...

    2023

  23. [26]

    High-Order Laplacian Regularized Low-Rank Representation for Multimodal Dementia Diagnosis

    Dong A, Li Z, Wang M, Shen D, Liu M. High-Order Laplacian Regularized Low-Rank Representation for Multimodal Dementia Diagnosis. Frontiers in neuroscience. 2021;15:634124. Place: Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.634124

    2021

  24. [27]

    Classification algorithms with multi-modal data fusion could accurately distinguish neuromyelitis optica from multiple sclerosis

    Eshaghi A, Riyahi-Alam S, Saeedi R, Roostaei T, Nazeri A, Aghsaei A, et al. Classification algorithms with multi-modal data fusion could accurately distinguish neuromyelitis optica from multiple sclerosis. NeuroImage Clinical. 2015;7:306–314. Place: Netherlands. https: //doi.o...

    2015 doi

  25. [28]

    Multimodal attention-based deep learning for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis

    Golovanevsky M, Eickhoff C, Singh R. Multimodal attention-based deep learning for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. 2022 Nov;29(12):2014–2022. Place: England. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocac168

    2022 doi

  26. [29]

    MRI-based Alzheimer’s disease prediction via distilling the knowledge in multi-modal data

    Guan H, Wang C, Tao D. MRI-based Alzheimer’s disease prediction via distilling the knowledge in multi-modal data. NeuroImage. 2021 Dec;244:118586. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118586

    2021

  27. [31]

    CNN-LSTM Based Multimodal MRI and Clinical Data Fusion for Predicting Functional Outcome in Stroke Patients

    Hatami N, Cho TH, Mechtouff L, Eker OF, Rousseau D, Frindel C. CNN-LSTM Based Multimodal MRI and Clinical Data Fusion for Predicting Functional Outcome in Stroke Patients. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society IEEE Engineering ...

    2022

  28. [32]

    Hybrid Graph Convolutional Network With Online Masked Autoencoder for Robust Multimodal Cancer Survival Prediction

    Hou W, Lin C, Yu L, Qin J, Yu R, Wang L. Hybrid Graph Convolutional Network With Online Masked Autoencoder for Robust Multimodal Cancer Survival Prediction. IEEE transactions on medical imaging. 2023 Aug;42(8):2462–2473. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2023.3253760

    2023

  29. [33]

    Breast cancer classification from ultrasound images using probability-based optimal deep learning feature fusion

    Jabeen K, Khan MA, Alhaisoni M, Tariq U, Zhang YD, Hamza A, et al. Breast cancer classification from ultrasound images using probability-based optimal deep learning feature fusion. Sensors. 2022;22(3):807. Publisher: MDPI. 37

    2022

  30. [34]

    Machine learning based multi-modal prediction of future decline toward Alzheimer’s disease: An empirical study

    Karaman BK, Mormino EC, Sabuncu MR. Machine learning based multi-modal prediction of future decline toward Alzheimer’s disease: An empirical study. PloS one. 2022;17(11):e0277322. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277322

    2022 doi

  31. [35]

    StomachNet: Opti- mal deep learning features fusion for stomach abnormalities classification

    Khan MA, Sarfraz MS, Alhaisoni M, Albesher AA, Wang S, Ashraf I. StomachNet: Opti- mal deep learning features fusion for stomach abnormalities classification. IEEE Access. 2020;8:197969–197981. Publisher: IEEE

    2020

  32. [36]

    MultiGML: Multimodal graph machine learning for prediction of adverse drug events

    Krix S, DeLong LN, Madan S, Domingo-Fern´ andez D, Ahmad A, Gul S, et al. MultiGML: Multimodal graph machine learning for prediction of adverse drug events. Heliyon. 2023 Sep;9(9):e19441. Place: England. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19441

    2023 doi

  33. [37]

    Transfer learning suppresses simulation bias in predictive models built from sparse, multi-modal data

    Kustowski B, Gaffney JA, Spears BK, Anderson GJ, Anirudh R, Bremer PT, et al. Transfer learning suppresses simulation bias in predictive models built from sparse, multi-modal data. Lawrence Livermore National Lab.(LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States); 2021

    2021

  34. [38]

    Discriminative Learning for Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnosis via Canonical Correlation Analysis and Multimodal Fusion

    Lei B, Chen S, Ni D, Wang T. Discriminative Learning for Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnosis via Canonical Correlation Analysis and Multimodal Fusion. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2016;8:77. Place: Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2016.00077

    2016

  35. [39]

    United States

    Li YC, Wang L, Law JN, Murali TM, Pandey G.: Integrating multimodal data through interpretable heterogeneous ensembles. United States. Journal Abbreviation: bioRxiv Pages: 2020.05.29.123497 Publication Title: bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology

    2020

  36. [40]

    HFBSurv: hierarchical multimodal fusion with factorized bilinear models for cancer survival prediction

    Li R, Wu X, Li A, Wang M. HFBSurv: hierarchical multimodal fusion with factorized bilinear models for cancer survival prediction. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England). 2022 Apr;38(9):2587–2594. Place: England. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btac113

    2022 doi

  37. [41]

    A transfer learning-based multimodal neural network combining metadata and multiple medical images for glaucoma type diagnosis

    Li Y, Han Y, Li Z, Zhong Y, Guo Z. A transfer learning-based multimodal neural network combining metadata and multiple medical images for glaucoma type diagnosis. Scientific reports. 2023 Jul;13(1):12076. Place: England. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-27045-6

    2023 doi

  38. [42]

    Inferring multimodal latent topics from electronic health records

    Li Y, Nair P, Lu XH, Wen Z, Wang Y, Dehaghi AAK, et al. Inferring multimodal latent topics from electronic health records. Nature communications. 2020 May;11(1):2536. Place: England. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16378-3

    2020 doi

  39. [43]

    Use of multimodal dataset in AI for detecting glaucoma based on fundus photographs assessed with OCT: focus group 38 study on high prevalence of myopia

    Lim WS, Ho HY, Ho HC, Chen YW, Lee CK, Chen PJ, et al. Use of multimodal dataset in AI for detecting glaucoma based on fundus photographs assessed with OCT: focus group 38 study on high prevalence of myopia. BMC medical imaging. 2022 Nov;22(1):206. Place: England. https://doi....

    2022 doi

  40. [44]

    Prediction of prognostic risk factors in hepatocellular carcinoma with transarterial chemoembolization using multi-modal multi-task deep learning

    Liu QP, Xu X, Zhu FP, Zhang YD, Liu XS. Prediction of prognostic risk factors in hepatocellular carcinoma with transarterial chemoembolization using multi-modal multi-task deep learning. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Jun;23:100379. Place: England. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eclinm.2...

    2020

  41. [45]

    Identification of early mild cognitive impairment using multi- modal data and graph convolutional networks

    Liu J, Tan G, Lan W, Wang J. Identification of early mild cognitive impairment using multi- modal data and graph convolutional networks. BMC bioinformatics. 2020 Nov;21(Suppl 6):123. Place: England. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-020-3437-6

    2020 doi

  42. [46]

    Multiple kernel learning in the primal for multimodal Alzheimer’s disease classification

    Liu F, Zhou L, Shen C, Yin J. Multiple kernel learning in the primal for multimodal Alzheimer’s disease classification. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics. 2014 May;18(3):984–990. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2013.2285378

    2014

  43. [47]

    Computer-aided prognosis: predicting patient and disease outcome via quantitative fusion of multi-scale, multi-modal data

    Madabhushi A, Agner S, Basavanhally A, Doyle S, Lee G. Computer-aided prognosis: predicting patient and disease outcome via quantitative fusion of multi-scale, multi-modal data. Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imagin...

    2011 doi

  44. [48]

    MC-RVAE: Multi-channel recurrent variational autoencoder for multimodal Alzheimer’s disease progression modelling

    Mart´ ı-Juan G, Lorenzi M, Piella G. MC-RVAE: Multi-channel recurrent variational autoencoder for multimodal Alzheimer’s disease progression modelling. NeuroImage. 2023 Mar;268:119892. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.119892

    2023

  45. [49]

    Cross-Modality Interaction Network for Equine Activity Recognition Using Imbalanced Multi-Modal Data

    Mao A, Huang E, Gan H, Parkes RSV, Xu W, Liu K. Cross-Modality Interaction Network for Equine Activity Recognition Using Imbalanced Multi-Modal Data. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland). 2021 Aug;21(17). Place: Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21175818

    2021 doi

  46. [50]

    Multi-Constraint Latent Representation Learning for Prognosis Analysis Using Multi-Modal Data

    Ning Z, Lin Z, Xiao Q, Du D, Feng Q, Chen W, et al. Multi-Constraint Latent Representation Learning for Prognosis Analysis Using Multi-Modal Data. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems. 2023 Jul;34(7):3737–3750. Place: United States. https: //doi.org/10.110...

    2023

  47. [51]

    Data augmentation and multimodal learning for predicting drug response in patient-derived xenografts from gene expressions and histology images

    Partin A, Brettin T, Zhu Y, Dolezal JM, Kochanny S, Pearson AT, et al. Data augmentation and multimodal learning for predicting drug response in patient-derived xenografts from gene expressions and histology images. Frontiers in medicine. 2023;10:1058919. Place: Switzerland. 3...

    2023

  48. [52]

    Multimodal Prediction of Five-Year Breast Cancer Recurrence in Women Who Receive Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

    Rabinovici-Cohen S, Fern´ andez XM, Grandal Rejo B, Hexter E, Hijano Cubelos O, Pajula J, et al. Multimodal Prediction of Five-Year Breast Cancer Recurrence in Women Who Receive Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Cancers. 2022 Aug;14(16). Place: Switzerland. https: //doi.org/10.3390/ca...

    2022 doi

  49. [53]

    Deep multimodal predictome for studying mental disorders

    Rahaman MA, Chen J, Fu Z, Lewis N, Iraji A, van Erp TGM, et al. Deep multimodal predictome for studying mental disorders. Human brain mapping. 2023 Feb;44(2):509–522. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.26077

    2023 doi

  50. [54]

    Learning-based Cancer Treatment Outcome Prognosis using Multimodal Biomarkers

    Saad M, He S, Thorstad W, Gay H, Barnett D, Zhao Y, et al. Learning-based Cancer Treatment Outcome Prognosis using Multimodal Biomarkers. IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences. 2022 Feb;6(2):231–244. Place: United States. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/trpms.202...

    2022

  51. [55]

    FAM3L: Feature-Aware Multi-Modal Metric Learning for Integrative Survival Analysis of Human Cancers

    Shao W, Liu J, Zuo Y, Qi S, Hong H, Sheng J, et al. FAM3L: Feature-Aware Multi-Modal Metric Learning for Integrative Survival Analysis of Human Cancers. IEEE transactions on medical imaging. 2023 Sep;42(9):2552–2565. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TMI.2023.3262024

    2023

  52. [56]

    Multi-Modal Data Analysis for Pneumonia Status Prediction Using Deep Learning (MDA-PSP)

    Sheu RK, Chen LC, Wu CL, Pardeshi MS, Pai KC, Huang CC, et al. Multi-Modal Data Analysis for Pneumonia Status Prediction Using Deep Learning (MDA-PSP). Diag- nostics (Basel, Switzerland). 2022 Jul;12(7). Place: Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.3390/ diagnostics12071706

    2022

  53. [57]

    Attention-based generative adversarial networks improve prognostic outcome prediction of cancer from multimodal data

    Shi M, Li X, Li M, Si Y. Attention-based generative adversarial networks improve prognostic outcome prediction of cancer from multimodal data. Briefings in bioinformatics. 2023 Sep;24(6):bbad329. Place: England. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbad329

    2023 doi

  54. [58]

    Deep Multi- Modal Transfer Learning for Augmented Patient Acuity Assessment in the Intelligent ICU

    Shickel B, Davoudi A, Ozrazgat-Baslanti T, Ruppert M, Bihorac A, Rashidi P. Deep Multi- Modal Transfer Learning for Augmented Patient Acuity Assessment in the Intelligent ICU. Frontiers in digital health. 2021 Feb;3:640685. Place: Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fdgth.20...

    2021

  55. [59]

    Automatic patient functionality assessment from multimodal data using deep learning techniques - Development and feasibility evaluation

    S¨ ukei E, de Leon-Martinez S, Olmos PM, Art´ es A. Automatic patient functionality assessment from multimodal data using deep learning techniques - Development and feasibility evaluation. Internet interventions. 2023 Sep;33:100657. Place: Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1016/...

    2023

  56. [60]

    Identification of Alzheimer’s disease using incomplete multimodal dataset via matrix shrinkage and completion

    Thung KH, Wee CY, Yap PT, Shen D. Identification of Alzheimer’s disease using incomplete multimodal dataset via matrix shrinkage and completion. In: Machine Learning in Medical Imaging: 4th International Workshop, MLMI 2013, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2013, Nagoya, Japan,...

    2013

  57. [61]

    Multimodal Machine Learning-based Knee Osteoarthritis Progression Prediction from Plain Radiographs and Clinical Data

    Tiulpin A, Klein S, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Thevenot J, Rahtu E, Meurs Jv, et al. Multimodal Machine Learning-based Knee Osteoarthritis Progression Prediction from Plain Radiographs and Clinical Data. Scientific reports. 2019 Dec;9(1):20038. Place: England. https://doi.org/ 10.10...

    2019 doi

  58. [62]

    MULTI-MODAL DATA FUSION SCHEMES FOR INTEGRATED CLASSIFICATION OF IMAGING AND NON-IMAGING BIOMED- ICAL DATA

    Tiwari P, Viswanath S, Lee G, Madabhushi A. MULTI-MODAL DATA FUSION SCHEMES FOR INTEGRATED CLASSIFICATION OF IMAGING AND NON-IMAGING BIOMED- ICAL DATA. Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging. 2011 Apr;2011:165–168. Place: United States. https://doi.org/...

    2011

  59. [63]

    RABOC: An approach to handle class imbalance in multimodal biometric authentication

    Tran QD, Liatsis P. RABOC: An approach to handle class imbalance in multimodal biometric authentication. Neurocomputing. 2016;188:167–177. Publisher: Elsevier

    2016

  60. [64]

    Multimodal integration of radiology, pathology and genomics for prediction of response to PD-(L)1 blockade in patients with non-small cell lung cancer

    Vanguri RS, Luo J, Aukerman AT, Egger JV, Fong CJ, Horvat N, et al. Multimodal integration of radiology, pathology and genomics for prediction of response to PD-(L)1 blockade in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Nature cancer. 2022 Oct;3(10):1151–1164. Place: England. ...

    2022 doi

  61. [65]

    Multi-modal disease classification in incomplete datasets using geometric matrix completion

    Vivar G, Zwergal A, Navab N, Ahmadi SA. Multi-modal disease classification in incomplete datasets using geometric matrix completion. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer; 2018. p. 24–31

    2018

  62. [66]

    Improved physiological noise regression in fNIRS: A multimodal extension of the General Linear Model using temporally embedded Canonical Correlation Analysis

    von L¨ uhmann A, Li X, M¨ uller KR, Boas DA, Y¨ ucel MA. Improved physiological noise regression in fNIRS: A multimodal extension of the General Linear Model using temporally embedded Canonical Correlation Analysis. NeuroImage. 2020 Mar;208:116472. Place: United States. https:...

    2020

  63. [67]

    Towards optimal deep fusion of imaging and clinical data via a model-based description of fusion quality

    Wang Y, Li X, Konanur M, Konkel B, Seyferth E, Brajer N, et al. Towards optimal deep fusion of imaging and clinical data via a model-based description of fusion quality. Medical Physics. 2023;Publisher: Wiley Online Library. 41

    2023

  64. [68]

    Interpretability-Based Multimodal Convolu- tional Neural Networks for Skin Lesion Diagnosis

    Wang S, Yin Y, Wang D, Wang Y, Jin Y. Interpretability-Based Multimodal Convolu- tional Neural Networks for Skin Lesion Diagnosis. IEEE transactions on cybernetics. 2022 Dec;52(12):12623–12637. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2021.3069920

    2022

  65. [69]

    Knowledge-infused Global-Local Data Fusion for Spatial Predictive Modeling in Precision Medicine

    Wang L, Hawkins-Daarud A, Swanson KR, Hu LS, Li J. Knowledge-infused Global-Local Data Fusion for Spatial Predictive Modeling in Precision Medicine. IEEE transactions on automation science and engineering : a publication of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society. 2022 Jul;19...

    2022 doi

  66. [70]

    Multimodal learning with incomplete modalities by knowledge distillation

    Wang Q, Zhan L, Thompson P, Zhou J. Multimodal learning with incomplete modalities by knowledge distillation. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining; 2020. p. 1828–1838

    2020

  67. [71]

    Graph Embedding Contrastive Multi-Modal Representation Learning for Clustering

    Xia W, Wang T, Gao Q, Yang M, Gao X. Graph Embedding Contrastive Multi-Modal Representation Learning for Clustering. IEEE transactions on image processing : a publication of the IEEE Signal Processing Society. 2023 Feb;PP. Place: United States. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TIP.202...

    2023

  68. [72]

    Interpretation on deep multimodal fusion for diagnostic classification

    Xin B, Huang J, Zhou Y, Lu J, Wang X. Interpretation on deep multimodal fusion for diagnostic classification. IEEE; 2021. p. 1–8

    2021

  69. [73]

    Gradient modulated contrastive distillation of low-rank multi-modal knowledge for disease diagnosis

    Xing X, Chen Z, Hou Y, Yuan Y. Gradient modulated contrastive distillation of low-rank multi-modal knowledge for disease diagnosis. Medical image analysis. 2023 Aug;88:102874. Place: Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2023.102874

    2023

  70. [75]

    Multi-modal sequence learning for Alzheimer’s disease progression prediction with incomplete variable-length longitudinal data

    Xu L, Wu H, He C, Wang J, Zhang C, Nie F, et al. Multi-modal sequence learning for Alzheimer’s disease progression prediction with incomplete variable-length longitudinal data. Medical image analysis. 2022 Nov;82:102643. Place: Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. media.2022.102643

    2022

  71. [76]

    DeepPDT-Net: predicting the outcome of photodynamic therapy for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy using 42 two-stage multimodal transfer learning

    Yoo TK, Kim SH, Kim M, Lee CS, Byeon SH, Kim SS, et al. DeepPDT-Net: predicting the outcome of photodynamic therapy for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy using 42 two-stage multimodal transfer learning. Scientific reports. 2022 Nov;12(1):18689. Place: England. https://d...

    2022 doi

  72. [77]

    TFormer: A throughout fusion transformer for multi-modal skin lesion diagnosis

    Zhang Y, Xie F, Chen J. TFormer: A throughout fusion transformer for multi-modal skin lesion diagnosis. Computers in biology and medicine. 2023 May;157:106712. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106712

    2023

  73. [78]

    Feature correlation hypergraph: exploiting high-order potentials for multimodal recognition

    Zhang L, Gao Y, Hong C, Feng Y, Zhu J, Cai D. Feature correlation hypergraph: exploiting high-order potentials for multimodal recognition. IEEE transactions on cybernetics. 2014 Aug;44(8):1408–1419. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2013.2285219

    2014

  74. [79]

    Multi-Modal Conditional GAN: Data Synthesis in the Medical Domain; 2022

    Ziegler JD, Subramaniam S, Azzarito M, Doyle O, Krusche P, Coroller T. Multi-Modal Conditional GAN: Data Synthesis in the Medical Domain; 2022

    2022

  75. [80]

    ENFORCING CO-EXPRESSION IN MULTIMODAL REGRESSION FRAMEWORK

    Zille P, Calhoun VD, Wang YP. ENFORCING CO-EXPRESSION IN MULTIMODAL REGRESSION FRAMEWORK. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing Pacific Sympo- sium on Biocomputing. 2017;22:105–116. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1142/ 9789813207813 0011

    2017

  76. [82]

    M3care: Learning with missing modalities in multimodal healthcare data

    Zhang C, Chu X, Ma L, Zhu Y, Wang Y, Wang J, et al. M3care: Learning with missing modalities in multimodal healthcare data. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining; 2022. p. 2418–2428

    2022

  77. [83]

    Statistical analysis with missing data

    Little RJ, Rubin DB. Statistical analysis with missing data. vol. 793. John Wiley & Sons; 2019

    2019

  78. [84]

    Modulo 9 model-based learning for missing data imputation

    Ngueilbaye A, Wang H, Mahamat DA, Junaidu SB. Modulo 9 model-based learning for missing data imputation. Applied Soft Computing. 2021;103:107167

    2021

  79. [85]

    Missing value imputation in high-dimensional phenomic data: imputable or not, and how? BMC Bioinformatics

    Liao SG, Lin Y, Kang DD, Chandra D, Bon J, Kaminski N, et al. Missing value imputation in high-dimensional phenomic data: imputable or not, and how? BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15:1–12

    2014

  80. [86]

    Random forest missing data algorithms

    Tang F, Ishwaran H. Random forest missing data algorithms. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining. 2017;10(6):363–377. 43

    2017

  81. [87]

    Polynomial matrix completion for missing data imputation and transductive learning

    Fan J, Zhang Y, Udell M. Polynomial matrix completion for missing data imputation and transductive learning. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 04. AAAI Press; 2020. p. 3842–3849

    2020

  82. [88]

    Multiple imputation

    Rubin DB. Multiple imputation. In: Flexible Imputation of Missing Data, Second Edition. Boca Raton, FL, USA: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2018. p. 29–62

    2018

  83. [89]

    Variational autoencoders for missing data imputation with application to a simulated milling circuit

    McCoy JT, Kroon S, Auret L. Variational autoencoders for missing data imputation with application to a simulated milling circuit. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 2018;51(21):141–146. Publisher: Elsevier

    2018

  84. [90]

    Multimodal generative models for scalable weakly-supervised learning

    Wu M, Goodman N. Multimodal generative models for scalable weakly-supervised learning. Advances in neural information processing systems. 2018;31

    2018

  85. [91]

    Training products of experts by minimizing contrastive divergence

    Hinton GE. Training products of experts by minimizing contrastive divergence. Neural Computation. 2002;14(8):1771–1800

    2002

  86. [92]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network

    Hinton G, Vinyals O, Dean J. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:150302531. 2015

    2015

  87. [93]

    Agree to disagree: Adaptive ensemble knowledge distillation in gradient space

    Du S, You S, Li X, Wu J, Wang F, Qian C, et al. Agree to disagree: Adaptive ensemble knowledge distillation in gradient space. advances in neural information processing systems. 2020;33:12345–12355

    2020

  88. [94]

    Dual Function Antibody Conjugates for Multimodal Imaging and Photoimmunotherapy of Cancer Cells

    Saad MA, Xavierselvan M, Sharif HA, Selfridge S, Pawle R, Varvares M, et al. Dual Function Antibody Conjugates for Multimodal Imaging and Photoimmunotherapy of Cancer Cells. Photochemistry and photobiology. 2022 Jan;98(1):220–231. Place: United States. https://doi.org/10.1111/...

    2022 doi

  89. [95]

    Knowledge distillation: A survey

    Gou J, Yu B, Maybank SJ, Tao D. Knowledge distillation: A survey. International Journal of Computer Vision. 2021;129(6):1789–1819

    2021

  90. [97]

    Classification of imbalanced data using SMOTE and autoencoder based deep convolutional neural network

    Alex SA, Nayahi JJV. Classification of imbalanced data using SMOTE and autoencoder based deep convolutional neural network. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems. 2023;31(03):437–469. 44

    2023

  91. [98]

    A scalable tree boosting system

    Chen T, Guestrin C. A scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. San Francisco, CA, USA: ACM; 2016. p. 785–794

    2016

  92. [99]

    The use of generative adversarial networks to alleviate class imbalance in tabular data: a survey

    Sauber-Cole R, Khoshgoftaar TM. The use of generative adversarial networks to alleviate class imbalance in tabular data: a survey. Journal of Big Data. 2022;9(1):98

    2022

  93. [100]

    Review of random forest classification techniques to resolve data imbalance

    More AS, Rana DP. Review of random forest classification techniques to resolve data imbalance. In: 2017 1st International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Information Management (ICISIM). IEEE; 2017. p. 72–78

    2017

  94. [101]

    Deep multimodal learning: A survey on recent advances and trends

    Ramachandram D, Taylor GW. Deep multimodal learning: A survey on recent advances and trends. IEEE signal processing magazine. 2017;34(6):96–108. Publisher: IEEE

    2017

  95. [103]

    Evolving artificial neural networks

    Yao X, et al. Evolving artificial neural networks. Proceedings of the IEEE. 1999;87(9):1423– 1447

    1999

  96. [104]

    Regularized evolution for image classifier architecture search

    Real E, Aggarwal A, Huang Y, Le QV. Regularized evolution for image classifier architecture search. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. vol. 33; 2019. p. 4780–4789

    2019

  97. [105]

    Multi-Modal Learning With Missing Modality via Shared-Specific Feature Modelling; 2023

    Wang H, Chen Y, Ma C, Avery J, Hull L, Carneiro G. Multi-Modal Learning With Missing Modality via Shared-Specific Feature Modelling; 2023. p. 15878–15887

    2023

  98. [106]

    A translational perspective towards clinical AI fairness

    Liu M, Ning Y, Teixayavong S, Mertens M, Xu J, Ting DSW. A translational perspective towards clinical AI fairness. npj Digital Medicine. 2023;6(172):37709945

    2023

  99. [107]

    Fairness in AI for healthcare: review and recommendations

    Norori N, Hu Q, Aellen FM, Faraci FD, Tzovara A. Fairness in AI for healthcare: review and recommendations. npj Digital Medicine. 2023

    2023

  100. [108]

    The limits of fair medical imaging AI in real-world generalization

    Yang Y, Zhang H, Gichoya JW, Katabi D, Ghassemi M. The limits of fair medical imaging AI in real-world generalization. Nature Medicine. 2024 October;30(10):2838–2848. https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03113-4

    2024 doi

  101. [109]

    University of Washington CSE Senior Thesis

    Hickmon J.: Multimodal Approaches to Fair Image Classification: An Ethical Perspective. University of Washington CSE Senior Thesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12165. 45 Appendix A . T able A1: PubMed Search Query 2023/10/09 Number Query Results 5 #1 AND #2 AND #3 AND #4 801 4 c...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.