SeLoC-ML: Semantic Low-Code Engineering for Machine Learning Applications in Industrial IoT

Aim: The majority of machine learning (ML) models in healthcare are built on retrospective data, much of which is collected without explicit patient consent for use in artificial intelligence (AI) and ML applications. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether clinicians and scientific researchers themselves consent to provide their own data for the training of ML models. Materials and Methods: This survey was conducted through an anonymous online survey, utilizing platforms such as Telegram, LinkedIn, and Viber. The target audience comprised specific international groups, primarily Russian, German, and English-speaking, of clinicians and scientific researchers. These participants ranged in their levels of expertise and experience, from beginners to veterans. The survey centered on a singular, pivotal question: “Do You Consent to the Use of Your Biological and Private Data for Training Machine Learning and AI Models?” Respondents had the option to choose from three responses: “Yes” and “No”. Results: The survey was conducted in January 2024. A total of 119 unique and verified individuals participated in the survey. The results revealed that only 50% of respondents (63 persons) expressed consent to provide their own data for the training of ML and AI models. Conclusion: In the development of ML and AI models, particularly open-source ones, it is crucial to ascertain whether participants are willing to provide their private data. While ML algorithms can transform the nature of data, it is important to remember that the primary owner of this data is the individual. Our findings show that in 50% of the cases, even participants from scientific research and clinical backgrounds – individuals typically accountable for ensuring data quality in AI and ML model development – do not consent to the use of their data in AI and ML settings. This highlights the need for more stringent consent processes and ethical considerations in the utilization of personal data in AI and ML research.

Machine learning in natural and engineered water systems

BackgroundThe exponential growth of publications regarding the application of machine learning (ML) tools in medicine highlights the significant potential for ML to revolutionize the field. Despite the multitude of literature surrounding this topic, there are limited publications addressing the implementation and feasibility of ML models in clinical practice. Currently, Machine Learning Operations (MLOps), a set of practices designed to deploy and maintain ML models in production, is used in various information technology and industrial settings. However, the MLOps pipeline is not well researched in medical settings, where multiple barriers exist to implementing ML pipelines into practice.ObjectiveThis study aims to detail how MLOps is implemented in health care and propose a maturity framework for the health care implementations.MethodsA scoping review search was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Results were synthesized using the 3-stage basic qualitative content analysis. We searched 4 databases (eg, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus) to include any studies that involved proof of concept or real-world implementation of MLOps in health care. Studies not reported in English were excluded.ResultsA total of 19 studies were included in this scoping review. The MLOps workflow identified within the studies included (1) data extraction (19/19 studies), (2) data preparation and engineering (18/19 studies), (3) model training (19/19 studies), (4) measured ML metrics and model evaluation (17/19 studies), (5) model validation and test in production (14/19 studies), (6) model serving and deployment (15/19 studies), (7) continuous monitoring (14/19 studies), and (8) continual learning (13/19 studies). We proposed a 3-stage MLOps maturity framework for health care based on existing studies in the field, that is, low (5/19 studies), partial (1/19 studies), and full maturity (13/19 studies). There were 8/19 studies that discussed ethical, legislative, and stakeholder considerations for MLOps implementations in health care settings.ConclusionsWe investigated the implementation of MLOps in health care with a corresponding maturity framework. It is evident that only a limited number of studies reported the implementation of ML in health care contexts. Hence, it is imperative that we shift our focus toward creating an environment that supports the development of ML health care applications, such as improving existing data infrastructure, and engaging partners to support the development of MLOps applications. Specifically, we can include patients, policymakers, and health care professionals in the creation and implementation of ML applications. One of the main limitations includes the varying quality of each extracted study in terms of how the MLOps implementation was presented. Hence, it was difficult to verify the presence and discuss in depth all steps of the MLOps workflow for each study. Furthermore, due to the inherent nature of a scoping review protocol, there may be a compromise on an in-depth discussion of each step within the MLOps workflow.

Machine learning-based water quality prediction using octennial in-situ Daphnia magna biological early warning system data

Machine Learning Can Accurately Predict Overnight Stay, Readmission, and 30-Day Complications Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Study question Can a machine learning (ML) model, developed using modern neural network architecture produce comparable annotation data; utilisable for algorithmic outcome prediction, to manual time-lapse annotations? Summary answer The model automatically annotated unseen embryos with comparable results to manual methods, generating morphokinetic data to enable comparably predictive outputs from an embryo selection algorithm. What is known already The application of artificial intelligence across healthcare industries, including fertility, is increasing. Several ML models are available that seek to generate or analyse embryo images and morphokinetic data, and to determine embryo viability potential. Along with photographic images, the use of time-lapse in IVF laboratories has amassed numeric data, resulting predominantly from annotated manual assessment of images over time. Embryo annotation practice is variable in quality, can be subjective and is time-consuming; commonly taking several minutes per embryo. The development of rapid, accurate automatic annotation would represent a significant time-saving as well as an increase in reproducibility and accuracy. Study design, size, duration Multicentre quality assured annotation data from 63,383 time-lapse monitored embryos (EmbryoScope®), comprising over 400 million individual images, were used to train a ML model to automatically generate morphokinetic annotations. Data was derived from 8 UK clinics within a cohesive group between 2012-2021. Accuracy was assessed using 900 unseen embryos (with live birth outcome) by comparing the output of an established in-house, prospectively validated embryo selection model when the input was either ML-automated, or manual annotations. Participants/materials, setting, methods Multi-focal plane images were processed on the Azure cloud (Microsoft) and resampled to 300x300 pixels. A Laplacian-based focal stacking algorithm merged frames into a single image. The model consisted of an EfficientNetB4 Convolutional Neural Network classifier to extract features and classify the stage of embryo images. A Temporal Convolutional Network interpreted a time-series of image features; producing annotations from pronuclear fading through to blastocyst. Soft localisation loss function used QA data to integrate annotation subjectivities. Main results and the role of chance The ML model rapidly and automatically generated annotations. Efficacy and comparability of the ML model to automate reliable, utilisable annotations was demonstrated by comparison with manual annotation data and the ML model’s ability to auto-generate annotations which could be used to predict live birth by providing annotation data to an established, validated in house embryo selection model. Live birth-predictive capability was measured, and benchmarked against manual annotation, using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). When tested on time-lapse images, collected from pronuclear fading to full blastulation, representing 900 previously unseen, transferred blastocysts where live birth outcomes were blinded, the in-house developed auto-annotation ML model resulted in an AUC of 0.686 compared with 0.661 for manual annotations, for live birth prediction. Auto annotation using the developed model took only milliseconds to complete per embryo. The developed auto-annotation model, built and tested on large data, is considered suitable for productionisation with the aim of being validated and integrated into an application to support IVF laboratory practice. Limitations, reasons for caution Whilst this model was trained to recognise key morphokinetic events, there are other morphokinetic variables that may be useful in the prediction of live birth and further improve embryo selection, or deselection, ability. Akin to manual interpretation, some embryos may fail to be annotated or need second opinion. Wider implications of the findings There is increasing evidence supporting the application of ML to utilise big data from time-lapse imaging and fertility care generally. Whilst promising benefits to IVF clinics and patients, responsible use of data is required alongside large high-quality datasets, and rigorous validation, to ensure safe and robust applications. Trial registration number N/A

The objective of this document is to identify the most accurate machine learning (ML) models for predicting the value of a real estate property, based on a systematic literature review (SLR). It was conducted on research published between 2022 and 2023 that analyzed the accuracy of ML models in real estate valuation. Information was extracted regarding the ML models used, the databases employed, and the models highlighted for their accuracy. A variety of ML models used in real estate valuation were identified, including Random Forest (RF), XGBoost, Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), Linear Regression (LR), and Lasso Regression. RF and LR models stood out as the most accurate in the analyzed research, showing that the accuracy of ML models varies depending on the database, property characteristics, and valuation context. It was concluded that ML models like RF and LR are promising tools for improving the accuracy of real estate valuation. Additionally, the choice of the best ML model depends on factors such as the database, property characteristics, and specific valuation objectives. Further research is needed on the application of ML in real estate valuation, considering aspects such as model interpretability and the real estate market context.

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) can progress to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and liver fibrosis, contributing to a heavier global health burden. Non-invasive diagnostic tools developed using machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), two representative artificial intelligence algorithms, are increasingly being explored for MASH and its related fibrosis assessment. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of different ML and DL models and identify the top-performing models for diagnosing MASH and associated liver fibrosis. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library from inception to May 18, 2025. Pooled area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) values with 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were also recorded. Of 4,314 studies initially identified, 106 met the inclusion criteria, with 35 studies (ML: n=28; DL: n=7) providing data for analysis. Logistic Regression and Neural Network are the most commonly algorithms applied in ML and DL, respectively. The pooled AUROCs for diagnosing MASH were 0.833 (95 %CI: 0.806-0.860) for ML models and 0.841 (95 %CI: 0.782-0.900) for DL models. Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) and ResNet50 were the best-performing models for diagnosing MASH within ML and DL algorithms, respectively, achieving corresponding AUROCs of 0.920 (95 %CI: 0.916-0.924) and 0.960 (95 %CI: 0.951-0.969). For fibrosis diagnosis, ML models had a pooled AUROC of 0.826 (95 %CI: 0.792-0.860), with Categorical Boosting (CatBoost) achieving the highest AUROC of 0.960 (95 %CI: 0.950-0.970). DL models yielded the pooled AUROC of 0.875 (95 %CI: 0.816-0.934) for fibrosis diagnosis. Both ML and DL models demonstrated strong diagnostic performance for MASH and liver fibrosis, with DL achieving marginally higher AUROCs. AI-driven approaches show promise in MASLD management.

Summary A meticulous interpretation of steady-state or unsteady-state relative permeability (Kr) experimental data is required to determine a complete set of Kr curves. In this work, different machine learning (ML) models were developed to assist in a faster estimation of these curves from steady-state drainage coreflooding experimental runs. These ML algorithms include gradient boosting (GB), random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGB), and deep neural network (DNN) with a main focus on and comparison of the two latter algorithms (XGB and DNN). Based on existing mathematical models, a leading-edge framework was developed where a large database of Kr and capillary pressure (Pc) curves were generated. This database was used to perform thousands of coreflood simulation runs representing oil-water drainage steady-state experiments. The results obtained from these simulation runs, mainly pressure drop along with other conventional core analysis data, were used to estimate analytical Kr curves based on Darcy’s law. These analytically estimated Kr curves along with the previously generated Pc curves were fed as features into the ML model. The entire data set was split into 80% for training and 20% for testing. The k-fold cross-validation technique was applied to increase the model’s accuracy by splitting 80% of the training data into 10 folds. In this manner, for each of the 10 experiments, nine folds were used for training and the remaining fold was used for model validation. Once the model was trained and validated, it was subjected to blind testing on the remaining 20% of the data set. The ML model learns to capture fluid flow behavior inside the core from the training data set. In terms of applicability of these ML models, two sets of experimental data were needed as input; the first was the analytically estimated Kr curves from the steady-state drainage coreflooding experiments, while the other was the Pc curves estimated from centrifuge or mercury injection capillary pressure (MICP) measurements. The trained/tested model was then able to estimate Kr curves based on the experimental results fed as input. Furthermore, to test the performance of the ML model when only one set of experimental data is available to an end user, a recurrent neural network (RNN) algorithm was trained/tested to predict Kr curves in the absence of Pc curves as an input. The performance of the three developed models (XGB, DNN, and RNN) was assessed using the values of the coefficient of determination (R2) along with the loss calculated during training/validation of the model. The respective crossplots along with comparisons of ground truth vs. artificial intelligence (AI)-predicted curves indicated that the model is capable of making accurate predictions with an error percentage between 0.2% and 0.6% on history-matching experimental data for all three tested ML techniques. This implies that the AI-based model exhibits better efficiency and reliability in determining Kr curves when compared to conventional methods. The developed ML models by no means replace the need to conduct drainage coreflooding or centrifuge experiments but act as an alternative to existing commercial platforms that are used to interpret experimental data to predict Kr curves. The two main advantages of the developed ML models are their capability of predicting Kr curves within a matter of a few minutes as well as with limited intervention from the end user. The results also include a comparison between classical ML approaches, shallow neural networks, and DNNs in terms of accuracy in predicting the final Kr curves. The research presented here is an extension of the state-of-the-art framework proposed by Mathew et al. (2021). However, the two main aspects of the current study are the application of deep learning for the prediction of Kr curves and the application of feature engineering. The latter not only reduces the training/testing time for the ML models but also enables the end user to obtain the final predictions with the least set of experimental data. The various models discussed in this research work currently focus on the prediction of Kr curves for drainage steady-state experiments; however, the work can be extended to capture the imbibition cycle as well.

Combining mechanistic modeling with machine learning to study multiscale biological processes Biological and physiological processes occur across a broad spatiotemporal range, with processes at one level of scale (e.g., gene expression inside single cells) affecting processes at other levels of scale (e.g., coordinated migration of endothelial cells during angiogenesis and tumor growth). Deducing the cause-and-effect relationships that link biological and physiological mechanisms across scales is a major challenge that both machine learning (ML) and mechanistic modeling approaches seek to address. Mechanistic models are particularly well-suited for simulating and/or computing how abstracted, intersecting biological processes give rise to changes over time. Data-driven/machine learning (ML) approaches, such as neural networks and clustering algorithms, on the other hand, integrate massive amounts of data to identify patterns, trends, and correlations in the data. Both methodologies can be used to generate novel insights and testable hypotheses, though the means for doing so differ depending on the modeling approach. Emerging computational strategies are combining mechanistic modeling and ML in ways that capitalize on their unique attributes and compensate for the deficiencies of the other. As discussed in this Research Topic, the resulting synergy created by merging these methods more comprehensively and efficiently leverages large-scale data sets to produce new insights about what biological processes connect across spatial and temporal scales and how they intersect to drive changes in cells, tissues, and organs. Sivakumar et al. provide foundational context for the integration of mechanistic and ML models, focusing on a particular class of the former (namely, agent-based models [ABM]). The authors introduce and explain key concepts, strengths, and limitations of both classes of models, and particularly highlight applications to spatial modeling of biological processes. They note the difficulties inherent in assessing ML models and discuss multiple applications of ML in the context of ABM (e.g., defining and determining agent rules, parameter estimation/model calibration, and reducing the computational cost of ABM). Erdem and Birtwistle present another use case for integrating ML and mechanistic modeling, this time in the context of mining 'omics data to define causal interactions and then integrate these inferences into a mechanistic model. The MEMMAL (MEchanistic

COVID-19 is highly infectious and causes acute respiratory disease. Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models are vital in detecting disease from computerized chest tomography (CT) scans. The DL models outperformed the ML models. For COVID-19 detection from CT scan images, DL models are used as end-to-end models. Thus, the performance of the model is evaluated for the quality of the extracted feature and classification accuracy. There are four contributions included in this work. First, this research is motivated by studying the quality of the extracted feature from the DL by feeding these extracted to an ML model. In other words, we proposed comparing the end-to-end DL model performance against the approach of using DL for feature extraction and ML for the classification of COVID-19 CT scan images. Second, we proposed studying the effect of fusing extracted features from image descriptors, e.g., Scale-Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT), with extracted features from DL models. Third, we proposed a new Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to be trained from scratch and then compared to the deep transfer learning on the same classification problem. Finally, we studied the performance gap between classic ML models against ensemble learning models. The proposed framework is evaluated using a CT dataset, where the obtained results are evaluated using five different metrics The obtained results revealed that using the proposed CNN model is better than using the well-known DL model for the purpose of feature extraction. Moreover, using a DL model for feature extraction and an ML model for the classification task achieved better results in comparison to using an end-to-end DL model for detecting COVID-19 CT scan images. Of note, the accuracy rate of the former method improved by using ensemble learning models instead of the classic ML models. The proposed method achieved the best accuracy rate of 99.39%.

BackgroundDespite the interest in machine learning (ML) algorithms for analyzing real-world data (RWD) in healthcare, the use of ML in predicting time-to-event data, a common scenario in clinical practice, is less explored. ML models are capable of algorithmically learning from large, complex datasets and can offer advantages in predicting time-to-event data. We reviewed the recent applications of ML for survival analysis using RWD in healthcare.MethodsPUBMED and EMBASE were searched from database inception through March 2023 to identify peer-reviewed English-language studies of ML models for predicting time-to-event outcomes using the RWD. Two reviewers extracted information on the data source, patient population, survival outcome, ML algorithms, and the Area Under the Curve (AUC).ResultsOf 257 citations, 28 publications were included. Random survival forests (N = 16, 57%) and neural networks (N = 11, 39%) were the most popular ML algorithms. There was variability across AUC for these ML models (median 0.789, range 0.6–0.950). ML algorithms were predominately considered for predicting overall survival in oncology (N = 12, 43%). ML survival models were often used to predict disease prognosis or clinical events (N = 27, 96%) in the oncology, while less were used for treatment outcomes (N = 1, 4%).ConclusionsThe ML algorithms, random survival forests and neural networks, are mainly used for RWD to predict survival outcomes such as disease prognosis or clinical events in the oncology. This review shows that more opportunities remain to apply these ML algorithms to inform treatment decision-making in clinical practice. More methodological work is also needed to ensure the utility and applicability of ML models in survival outcomes.

Artificial intelligence for patient scheduling in the real-world health care setting: A metanarrative review

Improving autocoding performance of rare categories in injury classification: Is more training data or filtering the solution?

Chemical heuristics have been fundamental to the advancement of chemistry and materials science. These heuristics are typically established by scientists using knowledge and creativity to extract patterns from limited datasets. Machine learning offers opportunities to perfect this approach using computers and larger datasets. Here, we discuss the relationships between traditional heuristics and machine learning approaches. We show how traditional rules can be challenged by large-scale statistical assessment and how traditional concepts commonly used as features are feeding the machine learning techniques. We stress the waste involved in relearning chemical rules and the challenges in terms of data size requirements for purely data-driven approaches. Our view is that heuristic and machine learning approaches are at their best when they work together.