A Systematic Review of Applications of Machine Learning and Other Soft Computing Techniques for the Diagnosis of Tropical Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic literature aims to identify soft computing techniques currently utilized in diagnosing tropical febrile diseases and explore the data characteristics and features used for diagnoses, algorithm accuracy, and the limitations of current studies. The goal of this study is therefore centralized around determining the extent to which soft computing techniques have positively impacted the quality of physician care and their effectiveness in tropical disease diagnosis. The study has used PRISMA guidelines to identify paper selection and inclusion/exclusion criteria. It was determined that the highest frequency of articles utilized ensemble techniques for classification, prediction, analysis, diagnosis, etc., over single machine learning techniques, followed by neural networks. The results identified dengue fever as the most studied disease, followed by malaria and tuberculosis. It was also revealed that accuracy was the most common metric utilized to evaluate the predictive capability of a classification mode. The information presented within these studies benefits frontline healthcare workers who could depend on soft computing techniques for accurate diagnoses of tropical diseases. Although our research shows an increasing interest in using machine learning techniques for diagnosing tropical diseases, there still needs to be more studies. Hence, recommendations and directions for future research are proposed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".