The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing different supervised machine learning algorithms for disease prediction
Open accessAbstract
Background: Supervised machine learning algorithms have been a dominant method in the data mining field. Disease prediction using health data has recently shown a potential application area for these methods. This study aims to identify the key trends among different types of supervised machine learning algorithms, and their performance and usage for disease risk prediction. Methods: In this study, extensive research efforts were made to identify those studies that applied more than one supervised machine learning algorithm on single disease prediction. Two databases (i.e., Scopus and PubMed) were searched for different types of search items. Thus, we selected 48 articles in total for the comparison among variants supervised machine learning algorithms for disease prediction. Results: We found that the Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithm is applied most frequently (in 29 studies) followed by the Naïve Bayes algorithm (in 23 studies). However, the Random Forest (RF) algorithm showed superior accuracy comparatively. Of the 17 studies where it was applied, RF showed the highest accuracy in 9 of them, i.e., 53%. This was followed by SVM which topped in 41% of the studies it was considered. Conclusion: This study provides a wide overview of the relative performance of different variants of supervised machine learning algorithms for disease prediction. This important information of relative performance can be used to aid researchers in the selection of an appropriate supervised machine learning algorithm for their studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Müller, A., Nothman, J., Louppe, G., et al. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.0490 · Cited by 71,016
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Learning representations by back-propagating errors
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986) · Nature · doi:10.1038/323533a0 · Cited by 31,892
An introduction to ROC analysis
Fawcett, T. (2006) · Pattern Recognition Letters · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010 · Cited by 21,879
Quinlan, J. R. (1986) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00116251 · Cited by 21,439
A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity
McCulloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. (1943) · The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics · doi:10.1007/bf02478259 · Cited by 18,566
Cited by
Using machine learning approaches for multi-omics data analysis: A review
Reel, P. S., Reel, S., Pearson, E., Trucco, E., & Jefferson, E. (2021) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2021.107739 · Cited by 903
Ali, O., Murray, P. A., Momin, M., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Malik, T. (2024) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123076 · Cited by 317
Enhancing Heart Disease Prediction Accuracy through Machine Learning Techniques and Optimization
Chandrasekhar, N., & Peddakrishna, S. (2023) · Processes · doi:10.3390/pr11041210 · Cited by 268
Mienye, I. D., Obaido, G., Jere, N., Mienye, E., Aruleba, K., Emmanuel, I. D., & Ogbuokiri, B. (2024) · Informatics in Medicine Unlocked · doi:10.1016/j.imu.2024.101587 · Cited by 212
Singh, S., Kumar, R., Payra, S., & Singh, S. K. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.44359 · Cited by 154
Metadata
- Authors
- Uddin, S., Khan, A., Hossain, M. E., & Moni, M. A.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
- Published
- 2019-12
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 281-281
- ISSN
- 1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2995098893
- Cited by
- 1,627
- References
- 65
- FWCI
- 123.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing different supervised machine learning algorithms for disease prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12911-019-1004-8
- The paper
- Uddin, S., Khan, A., Hossain, M. E., & Moni, M. A. (2019). Comparing different supervised machine learning algorithms for disease prediction. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-019-1004-8
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.