Observational studies form an important tool to complement randomized clinical trials in evaluating the risks and benefits of drugs and vaccines. This type of research relies on real-world clinical data, which provides insights into the effects of medical interventions across diverse population groups. However, these data may introduce biases that can affect the outcomes. This article addresses the use of machine learning techniques in estimating Propensity Scores and Disease Risk Scores, and reviews the effectiveness of these methods compared to traditional approaches. We will analyze real data from users of antihypertensive medications and present the results we obtained through a comparative study with a large set of adverse outcomes, in addition to simulations using synthetic data. This article will highlight how these advanced methods can be used to improve the accuracy of estimates and reduce bias, which may contribute to the development of better drug evaluation methods in the future.
Introduction and Importance of Using Machine Learning
Machine learning (ML) methods are considered a promising and scalable alternative for estimating Propensity Scores (PS), but their comparative performance in estimating Disease Risk Scores (DRS) remains underexplored. This approach is used in observational studies to evaluate the risks and benefits of medical treatments by analyzing real-world data that provides insights into medical interventions in diverse population groups. Although PS and DRS contribute to reducing confounding effects by achieving balance among variables, traditional methods such as logistic regression may face challenges due to the complexity of the data.
Studies show that the use of machine learning, including neural networks and advanced methods like XgBoost, represents a paradigm shift in improving the accuracy of propensity score estimation, in addition to reducing bias and increasing balance among variables. By comparing four estimation methods (ordinary logistic regression, logistic regression with L1 regularization – LASSO, multilayer neural networks, and XgBoost), the research reveals the strengths and weaknesses of each.
This study serves as evidence of the effectiveness of applying ML to large data sets, where the use of new and innovative methods contributes to providing better solutions to traditional challenges in pharmacoepidemiology.
Research Methods and Study Design
Real-world data from the UK healthcare system, specifically primary care records, were used to study the effects of antihypertensive drug use on fracture risks in the elderly. A set of adverse outcomes was selected as control criteria for studies and comparison, indicating no expected causal relationship with the use of specific treatments. Data were collected from a massive cohort of 632,201 patients, and the design was prepared to collect data in a manner that ensures balance and diversity.
The techniques used in the analysis, such as LASSO and XgBoost, contributed to enhancing the performance of PS estimates despite the nature of clinical establishments that often lack clear outcome effects. An additional analysis was conducted using plasmode simulation to ensure the existence of a known treatment effect on the alleged outcomes, making this methodology reliable in assessing model accuracy.
When measuring outcomes, the focus was on measuring bias and balance equivalence between treated and untreated groups. This analysis is important for understanding how different methods influence data interpretation and demonstrate the efficacy of drugs. It is also essential to consider that not all negative outcomes may be direct, indicating the need for appropriate control strategies to reduce bias.
Research Results and Key Conclusions
The results showed that machine learning methods outperform traditional methods in estimating PS in certain scenarios, with XgBoost achieving the best performance among the four methods. In contrast, the methods for estimating DRS were less effective than PS methods across all tested scenarios. This finding is important as it illustrates that the effectiveness of different techniques depends on the quality of the data and the complex structure it contains.
The results showed that…
The results also indicate that ML can be a reliable alternative for estimating PS; however, DRS estimation methods require further improvement and consideration of specific contexts. The use of large samples of real data is essential to ensure the accuracy of the estimates and to test hypotheses reliably. The presence of multidimensional data contributes to producing more accurate results that reflect the true clinical reality.
These results represent a call for increased research into the use of ML in other contexts, which can enhance the accuracy of medical research and assist in better clinical decision-making. The study also sheds light on the importance of data management and outcome modeling to derive reliable conclusions that aid in the development of drugs and various medical interventions.
Future Research Applications and How to Improve ML Methods
This study opens the door to the growing future of using ML in providing better solutions for estimating medical risks. It is important to expand future research to include larger and more diverse clinical trials to test the effectiveness of these methods. Strategies should also be developed to improve the performance of DRS so that they become reliable assessment tools comparable to PS in accuracy.
These techniques can be used in a range of medical applications, from assessing risks associated with new drugs to improving the design of clinical research. Participants’ preferences in the analysis may allow for more accurate studies on the health implications of various treatments, highlighting the necessity of linking data with clinical outcomes.
With the continuous advancement in computing technologies and the development of machine learning tools, the time has come for researchers in the medical field to consider integrating these methods to enhance the connection between research and practical reality. Ensuring the use of higher standards for evaluation and modeling can impact the final outcomes of studies, leading to improved levels of healthcare and services provided to patients.
Introduction and Data Analysis
The importance of data analysis in various fields, particularly in healthcare, indicates its vital role in supporting evidence-based decision-making. In this context, data collected from healthcare records was used to analyze the potential relationship between the use of antihypertensive medications and related risk factors. The analysis relied on a specific design known as Propensity Score methods and Disease Risk Scores, aimed at reducing the effects of bias during the estimation of therapeutic effects. In this way, factors affecting health outcomes can be better understood, facilitating the development of more effective therapeutic strategies.
Machine Learning Methods and Reference Techniques
The research discusses machine learning methods, including LASSO, MLP, and XgBoost, as primary methods for estimating the propensity function and disease risk scores. The LASSO method is a type of logistic regression that shrinks less important values to zero, aiding in variable selection and reducing overfitting to the data. MLP, on the other hand, is a type of neural network that allows for nonlinear processing through the use of multiple layers of connected neurons. XgBoost, on the other hand, is a technique based on building trees sequentially, where each new tree is developed to correct the mistakes made by the previous trees. Techniques such as 10-fold cross-validation are employed to optimize model parameters, which is essential to ensure the accuracy of results and reduce bias.
Settings for Propensity Function and Disease Risk Scores
The propensity function is a measure of the likelihood of receiving treatment based on accompanying conditions. There are several methods used to reduce the effects of bias through the propensity function, such as theory-based methods that take into account actual influencing variables. On the other hand, disease risk scores have been proposed as a method to address bias through probabilistic outcomes evaluation. This approach provides greater accuracy during estimation, allowing its application to populations outside the original study scope. Studies have shown that using disease risk scores often leads to improved impact estimates compared to traditional methods, enhancing the credibility of results based on healthcare data.
Estimation
Impact of Treatment and Balancing Covariates
The impact of treatment was tested after conducting matching operations based on the propensity score, where the balance of covariates was assessed using absolute standardized differences. The results indicate that there is remaining bias in some methods, reflecting the challenges of ideally matching covariates. According to the results, the XgBoost method achieved the best balance score in the propensity score covariates with a rate of less than 0.1, demonstrating its effectiveness in estimating effects compared to other methods like LASSO and MLP. It was also noted that the analysis of real data showed overall bias, highlighting the need to improve analytical methods to ensure the reliability of results.
Comparison of Disease Risk Scores and Propensity Scores
The results of disease risk scores and propensity scores were compared, where the balance between covariates was assessed after applying matching methods for both approaches. The results showed that disease risk scores were effective but highlighted imbalances in some methods after matching. This is attributed to differences in how various covariates are handled, with disease risk scores showing a higher level of balance compared to propensity scores in some cases. These findings make it necessary to continue exploring methods that enhance covariate balance to reduce bias and improve result accuracy, leading to more effective treatment decisions.
Comparative Analysis of Using Propensity Scores versus Disease Risk Scores
The findings derived from comparing propensity score methods and disease risk scores indicate fundamental differences between their performance in determining treatment effects. In this study, machine learning algorithms such as XgBoost and LASSO were utilized to estimate treatment effects, and the results were compared with traditional estimation methods. Through various measurements, it became clear that propensity scores, estimated using XgBoost and LASSO, provide better balance between the matching covariates compared to disease risk scores. While the disease risk score approach performed well, the differences in covariate and risk balance were notable, underscoring the importance of selecting the appropriate method according to the specific research context for each case.
Estimating Treatment Effects using Propensity Scores versus Disease Risk Scores
Propensity scores (PS) and disease risk scores (DRS) are used to estimate treatment effects through comparative models. The data used in this analysis includes negative control results to identify any potential bias in the estimates. The results indicated that the propensity score provided more accurate estimates and higher statistical power compared to disease risk scores. Analyses showed that all methods for estimating disease risk scores had remaining biases, indicating that the results were less reliable. These analyses support the idea that using propensity scores would be more useful in the multiplicative analysis of treatments and outcomes.
Challenges and Limitations Related to Using Machine Learning in Estimating Treatment Effects
Although machine learning algorithms have demonstrated excellent performance in specific data, there are some challenges to consider. For instance, using methods like XgBoost and MLP requires deep knowledge to tweak hyperparameters and interpret results. Additionally, XgBoost demands significant computational resources, especially when optimizing a large number of parameters in big data. While LASSO is a faster and more resource-efficient option, it may struggle to capture complex relationships between covariates. Also, ethical issues such as model transparency and algorithmic bias need to be addressed to ensure they do not negatively impact treatment decisions and patient outcomes.
Future Importance of Research in Estimating Treatment Effects Using Propensity Scores and Disease Risk Scores
Represent the
this study is the beginning of a deeper understanding of the uses of propensity scores and disease risk scores in estimating treatment effects. There is a need for more research to test the effectiveness of these machine learning methods in diverse scenarios and datasets. It is also important to investigate how to improve the performance of these systems in environments with unbalanced data. Methods such as synthetic sampling adjustments can be explored to mitigate the impact of unbalanced data and enhance estimation accuracy. The integration of machine learning approaches with other methods like evolutionary algorithms and composite methods can increase the level of accuracy and reliability of the models.
Statistical Methods in Treatment Research
Statistical methods are fundamental tools in treatment research, as they are used to minimize the potential effects of confounding factors in clinical trials and observational studies. One of these methods is the use of Propensity Scores, which help ensure balance between different study groups. The concept of propensity scores comes from the attempt to estimate the likelihood of assigning patients in clinical trials based on their baseline characteristics. In other words, these methods assist researchers in finding similar groups of patients to obtain a more accurate assessment of treatment effectiveness.
One study that reflects this theory is a study on the use of propensity scores in clinical nutrition research, where it shows that these methods are not only effective in processing data but also have the potential to improve clinical outcomes by adjusting for the effects of confounding factors. It is important to periodically review these methods to ensure their accuracy and reliability, especially with the evolution of data tools and analyses in recent years.
For example, medical researchers are applying complex models such as “deep learning” to enhance the accuracy of estimating propensity scores and achieve more balanced results. These models rely on powerful software tools capable of handling massive and complex datasets, thus increasing the efficacy of these methods.
Challenges of Using Propensity Scores in Clinical Studies
Despite the numerous benefits of using propensity scores, there are significant challenges faced by researchers. One of these challenges relates to bias. There may be unmeasured factors that affect the study results, leading to misleading outcomes. For example, if the researcher uses a model that relies solely on data recorded in English, they may overlook cultural or social factors that play a significant role in treatment effectiveness.
Additionally, the process of estimating propensity scores requires it to be complete and comprehensive. If the data is insufficient or inaccurate, the resulting conclusions may be unreliable. Moreover, using and applying the appropriate code to achieve accurate estimation of propensity scores can present another challenge, as it requires strong knowledge in statistical analysis and data science.
In conclusion, the efforts made to reduce biases arising from propensity scores are a vital step in researchers’ pursuit of greater accuracy in their research findings, requiring them to continuously evaluate and periodically update the models used to keep up with developments in this field.
Practical Applications of Propensity Scores in Medical Research
The importance of propensity scores is evident in many practical applications in the field of medical research. For instance, they have been used to estimate the effects of different treatments on patients in various contexts. In one study, propensity scores were used to evaluate the impact of a new medication on blood pressure. By forming two similar groups of patients, one receiving treatment and the other not, researchers were able to estimate the treatment effect with greater accuracy.
In addition, these methods are being used in the analysis of sports and health informatics data, helping researchers to arrive at accurate conclusions about treatment effectiveness in various contexts, such as comparing the effectiveness of drugs used to treat a specific disease. These techniques are not only useful in the medical field but extend to other areas such as healthcare quality control and medical services.
And with
the need remains urgent for conducting more studies on improving the methods used and expanding the application of propensity scores in clinical research, especially in light of recent technological advancements in data analysis.
Modern Methods in Big Data Analysis
Big data is considered the primary source of information used in current research, which includes real healthcare data that contributes to evaluating the effectiveness of treatments and medications. In this context, the importance of using new technologies such as Machine Learning (ML) has emerged to enhance the analysis of this data. Machine Learning represents a data analysis method using algorithms to predict outcomes based on studied patterns. For example, multi-layer models such as MLP or techniques like XgBoost can be used to estimate the treatment propensity scores and the risk grades associated with diseases by analyzing multi-dimensional data.
It is essential to understand that using machine learning allows researchers to explore non-linear and complex relationships between variables, which may not be captured by traditional techniques. For instance, looking at the impact of antihypertensive drugs on the risk of fractures, using models like MLP can reveal complex interactions between the patient’s condition, the medications used, and their medical history. Similarly, XgBoost is effective in handling big data and is characterized by strong performance in many applications.
In real data analysis, methods such as estimating propensity scores or risk grades are employed to attempt to reduce biases that may affect the conclusions drawn. Bias poses a significant challenge in medical research, as confounding factors can lead to incorrect results. Therefore, data-driven methods are sought to estimate the effects of treatments more accurately.
The Importance of Treatment Propensity and Risk Relationship
Propensity scoring helps reduce bias when estimating the effects of treatments. A derived model, such as a logistic regression model, is typically used to estimate the probability of receiving treatment based on a range of different factors such as age, gender, and medical history. This method is primarily designed to account for some confounding factors between treated and untreated groups, facilitating the estimation of the actual treatment effect.
Risk studies, also known as disease risk grades, are considered another method to address bias. Risk studies are characterized by representing the severity of disease or the risk of outcomes. While propensity score estimation methods are common in medical analyses, risk studies represent an easier conceptual framework for tracking patients and interpreting research outcomes. Although studies have shown that propensity scores may yield more accurate results, there is a growing interest in exploring how machine learning can be utilized to improve the estimation of these scores to enhance their reliability.
Challenges of Using Machine Learning
Despite the numerous benefits that machine learning brings, challenges exist. One of these challenges pertains to tuning model parameters. As mentioned, while techniques such as LASSO have been studied thoroughly, most other machine learning methods are often applied using default settings. These default settings may not be optimal in all cases, potentially leading to reduced accuracy of results. Therefore, further research is needed on how models like neural networks can be improved to provide accurate estimates.
Specifically in big data analysis, tuning system parameters plays a crucial role in achieving satisfactory results. Thus, it is essential to explore the impact of parameter tuning on the accuracy of estimates produced by machine learning models. Recent studies have shown that having a proper tuning process increases the accuracy of treatment effect estimates, highlighting the importance of research in this field. These challenges necessitate continuous examination and evaluation of machine learning models used in areas such as pharmacology.
The Importance
Real-World Data in Medical Studies
Real-world data is characterized by representing actual medical cases dealing with treatment choices and risks of progression. Large healthcare records are considered the primary source of this data, providing rich information on treatment outcomes across a diverse population. The use of this data extends to studying drug effectiveness, assessing clinical risks, and understanding patterns related to public health.
By analyzing real-world healthcare data, researchers can utilize modern techniques to better identify the effects of drugs in a way that closely aligns with reality. In this context, they can address issues that may arise in traditional clinical trials, such as limited sample size and selection bias. For example, UK healthcare databases, which encompass over 6 million individuals, have been used to analyze the impact of antihypertensive medications on fracture risk in the elderly. This type of analysis aids in forming significant conclusions about treatment and assists doctors and researchers in making informed decisions regarding treatment policies.
Conclusions and Future Expectations
Current studies emphasize the potential benefits of applying machine learning techniques in public health and the assistance that real-world data provides in better understanding treatment outcomes. The importance of improving and fine-tuning machine learning algorithms is vital to ensure accurate and reliable results. Ongoing research in this field highlights the need for new frameworks that accommodate these applications while also calling for broader collaboration among researchers from various disciplines.
In the future, there will be an increasing need to continue research to apply these techniques in other areas, such as predicting health outcomes based on individual patient data. Achieved results can contribute to better solutions in medical care, enhancing the quality of life among patients. Ultimately, focusing on integrating machine learning with real-world data can lead to improved treatment effectiveness, representing a significant step toward achieving thoughtful and personalized healthcare.
Interpreting Machine Learning Models
Machine learning models are used to understand patterns and predictions in data. Among these models, Multi-layer Perceptrons (MLP) and XgBoost are among the most common. MLP is a type of advanced neural network consisting of multiple layers of connected neurons, where each neuron performs a weighted sum of its inputs followed by an activation function to introduce non-linearity. This grants the model the ability to handle complex problems that require varying degrees of deep learning. On the other hand, XgBoost is a tree-based technique that builds decision trees sequentially, with each tree correcting the errors made by the previous tree. This model uses gradient boosting to minimize the loss function, making it highly effective for tasks involving structured data.
For instance, XgBoost is commonly used in popular data competitions like Kaggle, enabling teams to achieve superior results in prediction and data classification problems. Meanwhile, MLP offers greater flexibility in adapting to different types of data due to its complex characteristics. When setting up these models, parameters are optimized using techniques such as cross-validation, where data is divided into groups; this helps in evaluating the model’s performance and refining its ability to predict outcomes more accurately.
Estimating Propensity Scores and Disease Risks
Propensity Scores (PS) and Disease Risk Scores (DRS) are fundamental tools used to assess the relationships between treatment and outcomes. PS represents the probability of receiving treatment based on confounding variables. Various methods have been employed to mitigate confounding effects, enhancing the reliability of the results. Conversely, DRS has been proposed as a means to address confounding by estimating based on outcome probabilities, and it can be calculated from uncovered groups or complete cohorts. DRS represents an advanced step in handling hidden indicators, enhancing the ability of studies to provide reliable recommendations in health applications.
It appears
The evidence that the use of DRS can provide significant improvements in reducing bias when estimating treatment effects. For example, it has been shown that complete DRS outperforms incomplete DRS in reducing bias, as all available variables are taken into consideration to improve estimates. Techniques such as greedy matching are used to achieve balance in variables and then estimate the effects more accurately.
Results: Variable Balance and Treatment Effects
When analyzing real-world data, a large cohort of users of antihypertensive medications was included, along with non-users, resulting in 637 essential variables available for estimating PS and DRS. Variable balance was measured using the adjusted standardized mean difference (ASMD), where the results showed that the XgBoost method was the most effective in achieving better variable balance compared to other methods such as LASSO and MLP. This highlights the importance of choosing the appropriate model and its impact on data balance and the credibility of results.
When analyzing treatment effects after matching using PS, all methods exhibited some residual bias, prompting further research and scrutiny. The most positive effect was identified in XgBoost, which significantly reduced bias, contributing to supporting scientific theory and formulating appropriate treatment recommendations. This illustrates the potential benefit of using machine learning techniques in healthcare and medical research.
Comparison of Propensity Scores and Risk Scores
When comparing the results between PS and DRS, it became evident that both approaches enhance analytic capability but each possesses its strengths and weaknesses. For example, in some cases, propensity scores managed to achieve a better balance of variables in the real world, while risk scores showed similar results but with a limited impact on improving estimates in some instances. The results indicate that careful consideration must be given to context and data nature before determining the most suitable model for use.
This reflects the need for further comparative studies to analyze how to improve model performance based on the specific characteristics of each dataset. It is crucial to understand how model choice impacts the results and to analyze the practical application details of both PS and DRS. This information is not only useful for researchers but also for practitioners in public health to design more efficient experiments and achieve clearer therapeutic effects.
Effective Estimation of Treatment Effects After Matching
The effective estimation of treatment effects after matching is a fundamental element in analyzing real-world data, especially when it comes to understanding the impact of various treatments on specific health variables. Researchers use multiple techniques such as Disease Risk Score (DRS) and Propensity Scores (PS) to reduce outcome bias and strengthen model validity. The focus on these methods reveals performance differences between machine learning techniques and other traditional methods. For instance, Figure 5 in the analysis illustrates that risk ratio estimates using different methods showed variation, reinforcing confidence in statistics due to reduced statistical power compared to propensity scores. The differences in treatment effects also represent the facilities that machine learning models can provide when evaluating various outcomes.
Studies have shown that using techniques such as LASSO had a positive effect on covering negative outcomes while deep learning methods such as MLP and XgBoost were less effective in some cases. This serves as evidence of the importance of selecting the right model based on data nature. For example, in cases where data lacks balance, results may suffer from bias. Therefore, the relative performance of each method plays a crucial role in providing reliable insights into therapeutic effects.
Comparison
Between Disease Risk Levels and Potential Critical Points
The comparison between disease risk levels and potential critical points is considered one of the most important stages in statistical research, as these comparisons contribute to understanding how treatments affect patients. Estimating the effect of treatment is a complex process, requiring researchers to use a variety of methods to determine which approaches lead to improved patient outcomes. Analysis shows that traditional methods such as logistic regression may not provide the required accuracy in estimates compared to modern machine learning techniques.
Additionally, the analysis indicates that the relative variance in estimates embodies the diverse handling of available algorithms. For example, while the LASSO model showed good results in estimating the remaining ratio, the results of XgBoost were particularly reliable when dealing with unbalanced data. This highlights the exceptional capacity of modern models to handle nonlinear interactions and improve estimates based on prior knowledge.
Internal Performance and Model Effectiveness Verification
Modern statistical systems require significant importance in verifying the effectiveness of the utilized model. Among the internal verification methods applied in this context, 10-fold cross-validation was used to tune hyperparameters and assess model performance. This method provides great benefit in reducing model commitments and mitigating risks from overfitting. Furthermore, using external performance metrics such as Brier scores helps evaluate the most accurate dimensions of the predictions provided by those models.
However, the need for additional external investigations to enhance the results cannot be overlooked, as conducting such studies bolsters model reliability and integrity. It would be highly fruitful if researchers could analyze post-cross-validation using more diverse databases, reflecting a broader spectrum of potential outcomes.
Challenges and Developments in Using Machine Learning
Real data environments involve a range of challenges that need to be overcome when using machine learning techniques. Utilizing models like XgBoost and MLP requires specialized expertise in tuning parameters and analyzing results. Although XgBoost represents an effective tool for handling diverse data, it demands a considerable amount of computational resources, which may pose a barrier to widespread implementation. On the other hand, the LASSO technique is a faster and more efficient option, yet it struggles to model complex relationships between variables.
Moreover, ethical developments such as model transparency must be considered, as algorithmic biases can impact patients’ final outcomes. The burden posed by technical and ethical challenges requires the scientific community to proceed cautiously while thoughtfully integrating these systems into clinical practices to ensure the highest levels of efficiency and accuracy.
Modern Techniques in Estimating Treatment Effects
In recent years, modern techniques have become a key tool in the fields of epidemiological research and data science, especially in estimating treatment effects. Among these techniques, methods such as “Propensity Score Matching” and machine learning approaches stand out, helping to reduce confounding effects in observational studies. The work presented by L. and North and Zewotir in 2023 represents an important starting point, as they proposed the use of hyperparameter tuning for random forests to estimate treatment effects. This study provided new methods for improving the accuracy of predictions by selecting optimal parameters, demonstrating an important practical application of these methods in the health sector.
Furthermore, works such as those by Arbogast and Ray in 2011 address the effectiveness of disease risk scores and propensity scores, indicating how these tools can outperform traditional models when multiple confounding factors are present. It is important to highlight that these methods provide a means to estimate treatment effects more accurately, by addressing issues related to bias and imbalances in data.
But
The challenges remain, especially regarding transaction selection and the balance of changers. F. McCaffrey et al. in 2004 demonstrated how enhanced regression models can be used to support slope function estimates, leading to the development of new methods to increase the reliability of results. Such scenarios underscore the importance of precise analysis and the tools available for analytical research.
The Impact of Racial and Social Bias in Data Models
One of the foremost topics that require special attention is how racial and social bias affects health-related data models. Research led by Chin et al. in 2023 highlighted the importance of addressing these issues to ensure that health disparities in different communities do not worsen. The analysis conducted reflects the risks associated with failing to include appropriate corrective efforts, leading to a widening health gap between different groups.
In this context, there is an urgent need to develop methods to adjust bias through the use of deep learning models. In a study by Weberpals et al. in 2021, a deep network was used to estimate propensity scores, showing how data learning could significantly improve outcomes. These efforts clearly demonstrate a trend towards utilizing advanced technologies to meet the needs of modern epidemiological research.
Addressing bias necessitates a rigorous examination of practices and assumptions that may be unclear in health data. A thorough assessment of the tools used, such as those proposed by Lee et al. in 2010, reflects the importance of integrating machine learning to enhance the accuracy of treatment point estimates.
Challenges in Using New Techniques for Health Care Data
While modern technologies hold great promise for improving statistical analysis, there are several challenges that must be confronted. These challenges range from technical and methodological issues to concerns related to the data itself and ethics. The issue of handling imbalanced data is one of the most prominent of these challenges. Work done by Huang et al. in 2022 demonstrated the importance of developing new classification learning algorithms to address imbalanced data.
Another concern relates to data security and privacy. The use of big data increases the risks related to misuse or leakage. In a focused study, governance and privacy issues were addressed by Herrett et al. in 2015, reflecting the importance of establishing solid foundations for protecting health data.
Furthermore, researchers must consider how to present results in a way that the general public can understand, which poses another challenge in utilizing new technologies. Emphasizing training and education to enable end users to understand and apply the results correctly is essential.
Source link: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2024.1395707/full
Artificial intelligence was used ezycontent
Leave a Reply