4.7 Article

Cancer Prognosis and Diagnosis Methods Based on Ensemble Learning

期刊

ACM COMPUTING SURVEYS
卷 55, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/3580218

关键词

Ensemble learning; cancer diagnosis; cancer prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ensemble methods are used to improve performance by combining different types of input data, features, or learning algorithms, and they are also utilized in cancer prognosis and diagnosis. However, research in this particular field is lagging behind the technology. A systematic review and taxonomy on ensemble methods used in cancer prognosis and diagnosis can help the research community catch up with the technology and even lead the field.
Ensemble methods try to improve performance via integrating different kinds of input data, features, or learning algorithms. In addition to other areas, they are finding their applications in cancer prognosis and diagnosis. However, in this area, the research community is lagging behind the technology. A systematic review along with a taxonomy on ensemble methods used in cancer prognosis and diagnosis can pave the way for the research community to keep pace with the technology and even lead trend. In this article, we first present an overview on existing relevant surveys and highlight their shortcomings, which raise the need for a new survey focusing on Ensemble Classifiers (ECs) used for the diagnosis and prognosis of different cancer types. Then, we exhaustively review the existing methods, including the traditional ones as well as those based on deep learning. The review leads to a taxonomy as well as the identification of the best-studied cancer types, the best ensemble methods used for the related purposes, the prevailing input data types, the most common decision-making strategies, and the common evaluating methodologies. Moreover, we establish future directions for researchers interested in following existing research trends or working on less-studied aspects of the area.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据