Clinical NLP with Attention-Based Deep Learning for Multi-Disease Prediction

Haifeng Yang; Ting Xu; Xiandong Meng; Xiaoxiao Deng; Yan Wu

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Clinical NLP with Attention-Based Deep Learning for Multi-Disease Prediction

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Transformer-based multi-label classifier with multi-head self-attention is claimed to outperform five baselines on MIMIC-IV disease prediction, reaching 77.8% accuracy.

desk verdict Desk reject: the 77.8% MIMIC-IV claim depends on Table 1 comparisons to unrelated tasks and a 'context-aware semantic alignment mechanism' that the methods never specify. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01437 v1 pith:KZM6L7CG submitted 2025-07-02 cs.CL

Ting Xu , Xiaoxiao Deng , Xiandong Meng , Haifeng Yang , Yan Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CL

keywords electronichealthrecordsmulti-labeldiseasepredictionTransformerattentionmechanismMIMIC-IVclinicalNLPdeeplearningcontext-awaresemanticalignment

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 tries to establish that a Transformer-based multi-label classifier operating on raw intensive-care clinical notes can predict a patient's set of diagnoses more accurately than five established baselines. The authors report 77.8% accuracy, 75.9% precision, and 73.2% recall on MIMIC-IV, topping LSTM, CNN, BiLSTM, RF-MediSys, and DITTO, and they attribute the gain to multi-head self-attention capturing both medical entities and the co-occurrence structure of diseases. If the result holds, a single attention-based text model could serve as a practical backbone for extracting diagnostic information from EHR notes without hand-built features. The paper also claims the model degrades gracefully as training data shrinks and remains stable until roughly 10% injected noise.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the multi-head self-attention encoder, which computes scaled dot-product attention $Attention(Q,K,V)=\mathrm{softmax}(QK^T/\sqrt{d_k})V$ and concatenates parallel heads to form a contextual representation of the note. That representation is fed to a sigmoid classifier for each disease label, with a multi-label cross-entropy loss that models labels independently while attention is expected to capture label co-occurrence. The abstract names this combination a 'context-aware semantic alignment mechanism,' and it is what the paper credits for the performance gains.

What would settle it

Re-run LSTM, CNN, BiLSTM, RF-MediSys, and DITTO on the exact MIMIC-IV subset, label set, and split used to produce Table 1; if any baseline matches or exceeds 77.8% accuracy under identical metric definitions, the claimed superiority fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that multi-head self-attention over clinical text yields a better multi-label disease predictor than the five baselines in Table 1. The model embeds note text with a pre-trained medical language model, passes the embeddings through a Transformer encoder, and then applies a per-label sigmoid output layer trained with multi-label cross-entropy loss. The paper reports consistent gains in accuracy, precision, and recall, and interprets these as evidence that attention preserves contextual dependencies among co-occurring diagnoses while locating key medical entities. Sensitivity experiments show accuracy rising with training-sample fraction, a peak at learning rate 1e-4, and a sharp accuracy drop once injected noise exceeds 10%.

Load-bearing premise

The numbers in Table 1 are comparable: each baseline is assumed to have been evaluated on the same MIMIC-IV multi-label disease prediction task, the same data split, and the same preprocessing as the proposed model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single Transformer encoder can replace separate feature-engineering pipelines for multi-label diagnosis prediction from EHR notes.
Accuracy keeps improving as training data grows and stabilizes past 80% of the sample, implying the model is data-hungry and saturates only with large datasets.
Learning rate near 1e-4 gives the best accuracy/recall balance, while higher rates improve recall at the cost of accuracy.
Accuracy stays roughly stable up to 10% input noise and then drops below 0.67, so real-world deployments would need denoising or semantic augmentation.
The architecture is presented as reusable across disease types and datasets, offering a generalized foundation for clinical NLP.

Reading between the lines

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

If the architecture truly encodes label co-occurrence, it should transfer to other multi-label clinical tasks such as procedure or medication prediction from the same notes.
The reported noise sensitivity suggests a concrete extension: training with injected noise or contrastive objectives should improve the 20%-noise regime.
A separate evaluation of information extraction (the paper's stated joint goal) would be needed to show that the unified modeling claim holds, since the experiments report only prediction.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Short version: this is a desk reject. The paper's headline result is 77.8% accuracy on MIMIC-IV, but the table that supposedly shows superiority lists baselines from unrelated tasks, and the one named innovation, the context-aware semantic alignment mechanism, is never described. As written, the paper does not have a supportable empirical claim.

What is actually on the page: a standard Transformer encoder plus a sigmoid multi-label BCE head trained on MIMIC-IV notes and ICD codes. Equations (1)-(4) are textbook. The preprocessing description is reasonable, and the sensitivity probes (learning rate, sample size, noise) are sensible things to do. I will give credit for that much. But standard components plus a sensitivity sweep is not a new contribution.

The soft spots are load-bearing. The abstract and conclusion credit a context-aware semantic alignment mechanism, but Section III never says what it is. There is no equation, no module diagram, no ablation isolating it. The model description is just a vanilla Transformer with multi-head attention and a linear-sigmoid classifier. The mechanism exists only as a phrase.

Table 1 is worse. I checked references [22]-[26]. [22] is an LSTM for irregular sequential ICU data, not free-text diagnosis prediction. [23] is an IoT/CNN telehealth breast cancer model. [24] is a BiLSTM for blockchain cloud storage. [25] is an RFID access system from 2011. [26] is a genomics variant pathogenicity model. None of these is a clinical-note multi-label disease classifier on MIMIC-IV. Unless the authors reimplemented all of those systems under one shared protocol, which they never say, the 77.8% versus 68.4-74.6% comparison is not apples-to-apples. There are also no error bars, no seeds, no train/test split details, no hyperparameters beyond learning rate, and no code or data artifacts. The sensitivity figures are described in prose but not visible in the text I have, so I cannot verify them either.

The stress-test note is right: this is not mild under-reporting, it is a central claim that cannot be checked. The math that is shown is standard and fine, but the data reporting and citation pattern do not support the conclusions.

Who is this paper for? Maybe someone wanting a rough engineering baseline number on MIMIC-IV, but they should not rely on it. This does not deserve a serious referee. Recommend desk reject; if the authors resubmit, they need to define the alignment mechanism, run all baselines on the same task and split, and make code and data available.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a Transformer-based multi-label classifier with multi-head self-attention and a sigmoid output layer for predicting ICD diagnosis codes from MIMIC-IV clinical notes. The authors report 77.8% accuracy, 75.9% precision, and 73.2% recall, claim consistent superiority over five baselines (LSTM, CNN, BiLSTM, RF-MediSys, DITTO), and present sensitivity analyses for learning rate, sample size, and input noise. The manuscript does not include the actual content of the referenced figures, code, data splits, or a detailed experimental protocol.

Significance. If the empirical claims were reproducible, the paper would offer a modest confirmation that Transformer-based models outperform older sequence models on MIMIC-IV multi-label diagnosis prediction. However, the contribution is primarily empirical, and the evidence as presented does not support it. The authors provide no code, no data-split details, and no shared evaluation protocol, and Table 1 compares against baselines from unrelated tasks and datasets. The conceptual framing (attention, sigmoid multi-label classification, binary cross-entropy) follows standard practice and is not a new methodological contribution.

major comments (4)

[Section IV-B, Table 1] The central claim of consistent superiority is unsupported because the cited baselines are not evaluated on the same task or dataset. Reference [22] is a time-series LSTM for irregularly collected ICU data, [23] is a CNN for IoT-based breast cancer detection, [24] is a BiLSTM for blockchain-secured cloud storage in IoT healthcare, [25] is an RFID-based medical record access system from 2011, and [26] is a genomics model for transcript-specific variant pathogenicity prediction. None of these works performs MIMIC-IV clinical-note multi-label disease prediction, so the reported differences (77.8% versus 68.4-74.6%) do not constitute a controlled comparison and cannot establish superiority over any method.
[Section IV-A and Section IV-B] No experimental protocol is reported: the number of training, validation, and test samples is not given, the label set size is not specified, the exact data split is not described, the preprocessing thresholds for 'appropriate length and complete labels' are not defined, and the number of runs, random seeds, and error bars are absent. The only hyperparameter discussed is the learning rate. These omissions make the numbers in Table 1 and the sensitivity analyses impossible to verify or reproduce.
[Section IV-B, Figures 2-4] The sensitivity and robustness claims (learning-rate effects, sample-size trends, and noise tolerance) rest on figures that are not present in the manuscript. Since Figures 2, 3, and 4 are referenced but their data and axes are not shown, the claims that accuracy peaks at a learning rate of 1e-4, stabilizes above 80% of the training data, and drops below 0.67 at 20% noise cannot be checked.
[Abstract and Section III] The paper claims unified modeling for information extraction and multi-label disease prediction, but no information-extraction task, entity labels, or extraction metrics are defined or evaluated anywhere in the experimental section. All reported experiments are multi-label classification metrics, so the information-extraction component of the contribution is unsubstantiated.

minor comments (5)

[Section III, Equation (1)] The text says A is a scaling factor, but no A appears in the displayed formula; if the standard 1/sqrt(d_k) scaling is intended, it should be written explicitly and the symbol A should be defined.
[Section III, Equation (2)] The sentence following Equation (2) says 'Where A is the learnable projection matrix,' but the output projection is usually denoted W^O; the notation conflicts with the scaling factor A mentioned earlier.
[Section IV-A] The preprocessing steps (deduplication, de-identification, code normalization, sentence segmentation) are listed but no details are given about how they were applied, how many samples were removed, or how the final cohort was constructed.
[Section II] The related-work section includes several references that are only loosely connected to clinical NLP, such as [17] on small-target detection and [21] on cache management, which makes the motivation for the proposed architecture diffuse.
[Section IV-B, Figure 1] Figure 1 is referenced in Section III as illustrating the model architecture, but the figure is not included in the manuscript; the authors should either include it or remove the reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical training-and-evaluation study with no derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper makes no formal derivation whose conclusion is equivalent to its premises. The method section states standard Transformer multi-head attention in Eqs. (1)-(2), a sigmoid-based multi-label prediction head in Eq. (3), and binary cross-entropy multi-label loss in Eq. (4). None of these components is defined in terms of the reported accuracy, precision, or recall, and the reported 77.8% accuracy in Table 1 is an empirical experimental outcome rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The related-work section contains references that may involve the authors' own prior work (for example, reference [10] lists Y. Wu and X. Meng, who are also authors of this paper), but those citations are not load-bearing: the method and experiments are described independently, and no result is justified solely by a self-citation. The main weakness of the paper is experimental comparability: Table 1 cites baselines [22]-[26] that do not appear to address the same MIMIC-IV multi-label disease-prediction task and data split as the proposed model. That is a correctness and validity concern about the claimed superiority, not a circularity concern. No equation equals its own input, no parameter is fitted to the target metric and then predicted, and no claim is forced by a self-citation chain, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The reported gain rests on unspecified hyperparameters, unstated data filtering, and an assumed shared evaluation protocol that the paper does not establish. No new entity is introduced.

free parameters (3)

learning_rate = 1e-4 (Figure 2 peak)
Reported as the best learning rate in sensitivity analysis; no schedule or grid details are given.
model_hyperparameters = unspecified
Number of Transformer layers, attention heads, hidden dimensions, dropout, batch size, and optimizer settings are not reported, yet they determine the 77.8% result.
preprocessing_filters = unspecified
Only samples with appropriate length and complete labels were kept, and analysis was limited to adult patients (Section IV-A); the resulting label distribution is not quantified.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption MIMIC-IV clinical notes contain sufficient signal to predict ICD disease labels
The task assumes free-text notes encode diagnostic information well enough for multi-label prediction; no error analysis or feature attribution supports this.
domain assumption ICD diagnosis codes in MIMIC-IV are accurate and complete supervision
Ground truth for the sigmoid loss (Eq. 4); the paper does not address missing or miscoded diagnoses.
ad hoc to paper All methods in Table 1 were evaluated on the same task and data split
No evidence of a shared protocol is presented; the cited baselines address different problems, so comparability is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Clinical NLP with Attention-Based Deep Learning for Multi-Disease Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KZM6L7CG

@misc{pith2026250701437,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Clinical NLP with Attention-Based Deep Learning for Multi-Disease Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KZM6L7CG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01437}
}

read the original abstract

This paper addresses the challenges posed by the unstructured nature and high-dimensional semantic complexity of electronic health record texts. A deep learning method based on attention mechanisms is proposed to achieve unified modeling for information extraction and multi-label disease prediction. The study is conducted on the MIMIC-IV dataset. A Transformer-based architecture is used to perform representation learning over clinical text. Multi-layer self-attention mechanisms are employed to capture key medical entities and their contextual relationships. A Sigmoid-based multi-label classifier is then applied to predict multiple disease labels. The model incorporates a context-aware semantic alignment mechanism, enhancing its representational capacity in typical medical scenarios such as label co-occurrence and sparse information. To comprehensively evaluate model performance, a series of experiments were conducted, including baseline comparisons, hyperparameter sensitivity analysis, data perturbation studies, and noise injection tests. Results demonstrate that the proposed method consistently outperforms representative existing approaches across multiple performance metrics. The model maintains strong generalization under varying data scales, interference levels, and model depth configurations. The framework developed in this study offers an efficient algorithmic foundation for processing real-world clinical texts and presents practical significance for multi-label medical text modeling tasks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Artificial Intelligence-Based Multiscale Temporal Modeling for Anomaly Detection in Cloud Services
cs.LG 2025-08 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

A Transformer plus multiscale attention-weighted fusion is claimed to improve cloud anomaly detection metrics by 2-3 points, but the missing label definition and artifacts block verification.
Graph Neural Network and Transformer Integration for Unsupervised System Anomaly Discovery
cs.LG 2025-08 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

GTF-Net, a GCN-Transformer fusion, reports F1 0.889 and AUC 0.942 for anomaly detection on Alibaba cluster data, but omits the training objective and code.
Structure-Learnable Adapter Fine-Tuning for Parameter-Efficient Large Language Models
cs.CL 2025-09 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

A gated-adapter method with a sparsity regularizer is reported to match or slightly beat full fine-tuning on MNLI and BoolQ using 1.4% of parameters, but lacks the experimental detail needed to verify the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[22]

Multi-way adaptive time aware LSTM for irregularly collected sequential ICU data,

M. B. H. Cissoko, V. Castelain, and N. Lachiche, "Multi-way adaptive time aware LSTM for irregularly collected sequential ICU data," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 261, p. 125548, 2025

work page 2025
[26]

DITTO: an explainable machine-learning model for transcript-specific variant pathogenicity prediction,

T. K. K. Mamidi, B. M. Wilk, M. Gajapathy, et al., "DITTO: an explainable machine-learning model for transcript-specific variant pathogenicity prediction," Preprints, vol. 202404, p. v1, 2024

work page 2024
[23]

Advancements in telehealth: enhancing breast cancer detection and health automation through smart integration of IoT and CNN deep learning in residential and healthcare settings,

N. Y. Duodu, W. D. Patel, and H. Koyuncu, "Advancements in telehealth: enhancing breast cancer detection and health automation through smart integration of IoT and CNN deep learning in residential and healthcare settings," Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, vol. 45, pp. 214–226, 2025

work page 2025
[24]

Blockchain-based secure cloud storage for IoT healthcare using BiGRU and BiLSTM models,

P. A. Chougule, S. Sarumathi, R. Kant, et al., "Blockchain-based secure cloud storage for IoT healthcare using BiGRU and BiLSTM models," Proceedings of the 2025 3rd International Conference on Integrated Circuits and Communication Systems (ICICACS), pp. 1–6, 2025

work page 2025
[25]

RF-MediSys: a radio frequency identification-based electronic medical record system for improving medical information accessibility and services at point of care,

J. S. L. Ting, A. H. C. Tsang, A. W. H. Ip, et al., "RF-MediSys: a radio frequency identification-based electronic medical record system for improving medical information accessibility and services at point of care," Health Information Management Journal, vol. 40, no. 1, 2011

work page 2011
[1]

Deep learning model for multi-classification of infectious diseases from unstructured electronic medical records,

M. Wang, Z. Wei, M. Jia, et al., "Deep learning model for multi-classification of infectious diseases from unstructured electronic medical records," BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 41, 2022

work page 2022
[2]

Natural language processing in electronic health records in relation to healthcare decision-making: a systematic review,

E. Hossain, R. Rana, N. Higgins, et al., "Natural language processing in electronic health records in relation to healthcare decision-making: a systematic review," Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 155, p. 106649, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Neural natural language processing for unstructured data in electronic health records: a review,

I. Li, J. Pan, J. Goldwasser, et al., "Neural natural language processing for unstructured data in electronic health records: a review," Computer Science Review, vol. 46, p. 100511, 2022

work page 2022

Show all 26 references

[4]

Semantic interoperability in health records standards: a systematic literature review,

B. H. de Mello, S. J. Rigo, C. A. da Costa, et al., "Semantic interoperability in health records standards: a systematic literature review," Health and Technology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 255–272, 2022

2022
[5]

Time-aware and multi-source feature fusion for transformer-based medical text analysis,

X. Wang, "Time-aware and multi-source feature fusion for transformer-based medical text analysis," Transactions on Computational and Scientific Methods, vol. 4, no. 7, 2024

2024
[6]

A LongFormer-based framework for accurate and efficient medical text summarization,

D. Sun, J. He, H. Zhang, Z. Qi, H. Zheng, and X. Wang, "A LongFormer-based framework for accurate and efficient medical text summarization," Proceedings of the 2025 8th International Conference on Advanced Algorithms and Control Engineering (ICAACE), pp. 1527–1531, 2025

2025
[7]

Pre-trained language models and few-shot learning for medical entity extraction,

X. Wang, G. Liu, B. Zhu, J. He, H. Zheng, and H. Zhang, "Pre-trained language models and few-shot learning for medical entity extraction," arXiv preprint, arXiv:2504.04385, 2025

2025 arXiv
[8]

Structured gradient guidance for few-shot adaptation in large language models,

H. Zheng, Y. Wang, R. Pan, G. Liu, B. Zhu, and H. Zhang, "Structured gradient guidance for few-shot adaptation in large language models," arXiv preprint, arXiv:2506.00726, 2025

2025 arXiv
[9]

Perception-guided structural framework for large language model design,

F. Guo, L. Zhu, Y. Wang, and G. Cai, "Perception-guided structural framework for large language model design," Journal of Computer Technology and Software, vol. 4, no. 5, 2025

2025
[10]

Unified instruction encoding and gradient coordination for multi-task language models,

W. Zhang, Z. Xu, Y. Tian, Y. Wu, M. Wang, and X. Meng, "Unified instruction encoding and gradient coordination for multi-task language models," 2025

2025
[11]

Bootstrapped structural prompting for analogical reasoning in pretrained language models,

Y. Xing, "Bootstrapped structural prompting for analogical reasoning in pretrained language models," Transactions on Computational and Scientific Methods, vol. 4, no. 11, 2024

2024
[12]

Challenges and opportunities beyond structured data in analysis of electronic health records,

M. Tayefi, P. Ngo, T. Chomutare, et al., "Challenges and opportunities beyond structured data in analysis of electronic health records," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, vol. 13, no. 6, p. e1549, 2021

2021
[13]

Osteoarthritis across joint sites in the Million Veteran Program cohort: insights from electronic health records and military service history,

K. M. Lavin, J. S. Richman, M. L. N. McDonald, et al., "Osteoarthritis across joint sites in the Million Veteran Program cohort: insights from electronic health records and military service history," The Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 66–76, 2025

2025
[14]

P. Suri, A. D. Tanus, I. Stanaway, et al., "Evaluating the representativeness of a cohort study of low back pain: using electronic health record data to make direct comparisons of study participants with non participants from the study population," The Journal of Pain, vol. 26...

2025
[15]

Unsupervised anomaly detection in structured data using structure-aware diffusion mechanisms,

H. Xin and R. Pan, "Unsupervised anomaly detection in structured data using structure-aware diffusion mechanisms," Journal of Computer Science and Software Applications, vol. 5, no. 5, 2025

2025
[16]

Anomaly detection in microservice environments via conditional multiscale GANs and adaptive temporal autoencoders,

Y. Ma, "Anomaly detection in microservice environments via conditional multiscale GANs and adaptive temporal autoencoders," Transactions on Computational and Scientific Methods, vol. 4, no. 10, 2024

2024
[17]

A hierarchical feature fusion and dynamic collaboration framework for robust small target detection,

X. Yan, J. Du, X. Li, X. Wang, X. Sun, P. Li, and H. Zheng, "A hierarchical feature fusion and dynamic collaboration framework for robust small target detection," IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 123456–123467, 2025

2025
[18]

A deep learning-based predictive framework for backend latency using AI-augmented structured modeling,

Z. Fang, "A deep learning-based predictive framework for backend latency using AI-augmented structured modeling," Journal of Computer Technology and Software, vol. 3, no. 7, 2024

2024
[19]

Survival prediction across diverse cancer types using neural networks,

X. Yan, W. Wang, M. Xiao, Y. Li, and M. Gao, "Survival prediction across diverse cancer types using neural networks," Proceedings of the 2024 7th International Conference on Machine Vision and Applications, pp. 134–138, 2024

2024
[20]

A meta-learning framework for cross-service elastic scaling in cloud environments,

T. Tang, "A meta-learning framework for cross-service elastic scaling in cloud environments," Journal of Computer Technology and Software, vol. 3, no. 8, 2024

2024
[21]

A deep Q-network approach to intelligent cache management in dynamic backend environments,

Y. Sun, R. Meng, R. Zhang, Q. Wu, and H. Wang, "A deep Q-network approach to intelligent cache management in dynamic backend environments," 2025

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [22]

Multi-way adaptive time aware LSTM for irregularly collected sequential ICU data,

M. B. H. Cissoko, V. Castelain, and N. Lachiche, "Multi-way adaptive time aware LSTM for irregularly collected sequential ICU data," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 261, p. 125548, 2025

work page 2025

[2] [26]

DITTO: an explainable machine-learning model for transcript-specific variant pathogenicity prediction,

T. K. K. Mamidi, B. M. Wilk, M. Gajapathy, et al., "DITTO: an explainable machine-learning model for transcript-specific variant pathogenicity prediction," Preprints, vol. 202404, p. v1, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [23]

Advancements in telehealth: enhancing breast cancer detection and health automation through smart integration of IoT and CNN deep learning in residential and healthcare settings,

N. Y. Duodu, W. D. Patel, and H. Koyuncu, "Advancements in telehealth: enhancing breast cancer detection and health automation through smart integration of IoT and CNN deep learning in residential and healthcare settings," Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, vol. 45, pp. 214–226, 2025

work page 2025

[4] [24]

Blockchain-based secure cloud storage for IoT healthcare using BiGRU and BiLSTM models,

P. A. Chougule, S. Sarumathi, R. Kant, et al., "Blockchain-based secure cloud storage for IoT healthcare using BiGRU and BiLSTM models," Proceedings of the 2025 3rd International Conference on Integrated Circuits and Communication Systems (ICICACS), pp. 1–6, 2025

work page 2025

[5] [25]

RF-MediSys: a radio frequency identification-based electronic medical record system for improving medical information accessibility and services at point of care,

J. S. L. Ting, A. H. C. Tsang, A. W. H. Ip, et al., "RF-MediSys: a radio frequency identification-based electronic medical record system for improving medical information accessibility and services at point of care," Health Information Management Journal, vol. 40, no. 1, 2011

work page 2011

[6] [1]

Deep learning model for multi-classification of infectious diseases from unstructured electronic medical records,

M. Wang, Z. Wei, M. Jia, et al., "Deep learning model for multi-classification of infectious diseases from unstructured electronic medical records," BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 41, 2022

work page 2022

[7] [2]

Natural language processing in electronic health records in relation to healthcare decision-making: a systematic review,

E. Hossain, R. Rana, N. Higgins, et al., "Natural language processing in electronic health records in relation to healthcare decision-making: a systematic review," Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 155, p. 106649, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [3]

Neural natural language processing for unstructured data in electronic health records: a review,

I. Li, J. Pan, J. Goldwasser, et al., "Neural natural language processing for unstructured data in electronic health records: a review," Computer Science Review, vol. 46, p. 100511, 2022

work page 2022