Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Cardiovascular Disease Detection By Leveraging Semi-Supervised Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that semi-supervised learning, trained on just half the labeled training data, detects cardiovascular disease as accurately on BRFSS self-reported health data as fully supervised models, with Self-Training matching the…

desk verdict The paper's core claim—that semi-supervised learning reduces labeling dependence—is untested because Table I lacks a supervised baseline on the same 50% labeled subset, and the abstract's 'outperform' is contradicted by the paper's own results. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10567 v1 pith:WJTVQQJA submitted 2024-12-13 q-bio.QM cs.CEcs.LGstat.AP

Shaohan Chen , Zheyan Liu , Huili Zheng , Qimin Zhang , Yiru Gong This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QMcs.CEcs.LGstat.AP
keywords cardiovasculardiseasedetectionsemi-supervisedlearningself-trainingpseudo-labelingBRFSSlabeleddatascarcityAUCF1-score
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Cardiovascular disease detection typically depends on large, carefully labeled datasets, which are hard to produce in clinical settings. This paper tries to show that semi-supervised learning relaxes that requirement: on a cleaned 20,544-record BRFSS survey sample, five semi-supervised models trained with only 50% of the training data labeled are compared against five fully supervised models trained on all labels. The headline result is Self-Training, which reaches Accuracy 0.8003, F1 0.5175, and AUC 0.8425, within a few thousandths of a point of Gradient Boosting's 0.8027, 0.5179, and 0.8439. The abstract states the claim as 'semi-supervised models outperform traditional supervised learning techniques,' while the table shows the best semi-supervised model matching rather than beating the best supervised one. If the comparison holds, initial CVD screening could be built with far fewer expert annotations at nearly the same accuracy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the confidence-thresholded pseudo-labeling loop of Self-Training: a logistic-regression seed classifier predicts labels for unlabeled points, keeps only predictions above a threshold, adds them to the training set, and retrains repeatedly. Pseudo-Labeling is the same idea with a fixed high threshold, while Semi-Supervised SVM adds slack terms for unlabeled points to the margin objective, and Mean Teacher and Pi-Model enforce consistency between EMA-averaged or perturbed network outputs. The comparison in Table I is what carries the paper's conclusion: it attributes Self-Training's near-parity with Gradient Boosting to the unlabeled half of a 50%-labeled training set.

What would settle it

Train Gradient Boosting, Logistic Regression, and Random Forest on exactly the same 50% labeled subset used by the SSL models, and compare their Accuracy, F1, and AUC on the same test set. If any of these supervised models matches or beats Self-Training's 0.8003/0.5175/0.8425 without seeing the unlabeled data, the paper's attribution of the gain to unlabeled data is undercut.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a confidence-based pseudo-labeling loop can substitute unlabeled survey data for missing labels: with half the training set labeled, the Self-Training model attains Accuracy 0.8003, F1 0.5175, and AUC 0.8425, versus Gradient Boosting's 0.8027, 0.5179, and 0.8439 on the full labeled set. The authors interpret the near-parity as evidence that unlabeled data carries enough signal to match the top supervised model, and they generalize this to the claim that semi-supervised learning outperforms traditional supervised techniques for cardiovascular disease detection. The other semi-supervised models—Semi-Supervised SVM, Pseudo-Labeling, Mean Teacher, and Pi-Model—also stay above 0.75 AUC at 50% labels, though they trail Self-Training.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central comparison assumes that an SSL model trained on 50% labeled plus 50% unlabeled data differs from a supervised model trained on 100% labeled data only in the unlabeled data, yet no supervised model is trained on the same 50% labeled subset, so the observed parity could stem from data quantity, model class, or procedure rather than from semi-supervision itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the BRFSS-derived data, the best semi-supervised model needs only half the labeled training data to match the best fully supervised model's Accuracy, F1, and AUC, so the labeling burden for this screening task could be cut roughly in half.
  • All five semi-supervised models improve steadily as the labeled fraction rises from 10% to 50%, indicating that they make effective use of added labels as well as unlabeled data.
  • Self-Training is the strongest semi-supervised method in the comparison, while consistency-based methods (Mean Teacher and Pi-Model) lag, suggesting that pseudo-labeling is the more productive direction on this kind of tabular health-survey data.
  • The authors propose semi-supervised screening as an initial triage step in clinical environments, where fully labeled datasets are the bottleneck.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not include a supervised baseline trained on the same 50% labeled subset; adding that matched-label baseline would separate the contribution of unlabeled data from the contribution of model class and data quantity.
  • The F1-scores near 0.5 show the dataset is class-imbalanced, so a natural extension is to test whether Self-Training's gain persists under class-weighting, resampling, or higher-threshold operating points.
  • The reported numbers come from a single 75/25 train/test split without resampling, so a repeated-split or bootstrap replication would show whether Self-Training's near-tie with Gradient Boosting is stable or within noise.
  • The same pseudo-labeling recipe could be applied to other chronic-disease flags in BRFSS (diabetes, stroke, kidney disease), where the survey structure and labeling costs are identical.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies five semi-supervised learning (SSL) methods (Semi-Supervised SVM, Self-Training, Pseudo-Labeling, Mean Teacher, Pi-Model) to cardiovascular disease detection using a cleaned subset of 20,544 BRFSS records. The experimental protocol trains SSL models on 50% labeled plus 50% unlabeled training data and supervises five standard classifiers (Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, KNN, Gradient Boosting) on the full 100% labeled training set. The central claim, stated in the abstract and repeated in Section IV.B and the conclusion, is that SSL models outperform traditional supervised learning while reducing dependence on labeled data. However, the paper's own Table I shows that the best SSL model (Self-Training) achieves accuracy 0.8003, F1 0.5175, and AUC 0.8425, whereas supervised Gradient Boosting achieves 0.8027, 0.5179, and 0.8439, respectively, and Logistic Regression achieves AUC 0.8443. The comparison is also not matched on the amount of labeled data: no supervised model is trained on the same 50% labeled subset used by the SSL models.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide useful evidence that SSL can lower annotation costs for cardiovascular risk screening. The authors are to be credited for evaluating several SSL variants and reporting three standard metrics on a public dataset, and for describing the methods with equations. However, the load-bearing claim that SSL outperforms supervised learning is contradicted by the paper's own Table I, and the reduced-labeling claim is untested because the comparison lacks a supervised baseline on the same 50% labeled subset. The empirical contribution is therefore not sufficient to support the abstract's conclusions. Disagreement with the current consensus is not the issue; the internal inconsistency between the stated claims and the reported numbers is the central problem.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV.B] The abstract claims that 'semi-supervised models outperform traditional supervised learning techniques,' but Table I directly contradicts this. Self-Training, the best SSL model, has accuracy 0.8003 and AUC 0.8425, while supervised Gradient Boosting has accuracy 0.8027 and AUC 0.8439, and Logistic Regression has AUC 0.8443. The F1 scores are essentially tied (0.5175 vs. 0.5179). The paper should either remove the outperform claim or provide a statistically validated setting in which SSL is actually superior on at least one primary metric.
  2. [Section IV.B] The assertion that SSL 'can match the top supervised models' metrics with half the labeled data' is not supported by the experimental design. SSL models are trained on 50% labeled plus 50% unlabeled data, whereas supervised models are trained on 100% labeled data. Without a supervised baseline trained on the same 50% labeled subset, any parity between the two families could be due to the supervised model class, the model capacity, or the reduced data size, rather than to the SSL mechanism. The authors should add matched-label supervised baselines at 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% labeled data and report the corresponding metrics.
  3. [Section IV.A] Figures 2 and 3 are described as showing 'performance enhancements' in F1 and AUC as labeled data increases from 10% to 50%, but no numerical values, standard deviations, or confidence intervals are reported. The paper also does not state how many random splits or training runs were performed. Without variance estimates or significance tests, the apparent improvements and the ranking of models (e.g., Self-Training versus Semi-Supervised SVM) are not statistically grounded.
  4. [Section III] Several implementation details required for reproducibility are missing. For Semi-Supervised SVM, the penalty parameters C and C* are not specified. For Self-Training and Pseudo-Labeling, the confidence threshold is not given. For Mean Teacher and Pi-Model, the network architecture, optimizer, learning rate, batch size, number of epochs, and the regularization coefficient λ are not provided. The paper should also describe how the 50% labeled/50% unlabeled split was constructed (e.g., random, stratified, seeded) so that the experiment can be repeated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.B] The sentence ending 'with only 50' is incomplete; it should read 'with only 50% labeled data.'
  2. [Section II.A] The text contains grammatical errors, such as 'In out dataset' and 'The response variable is Heart Disease , shows'.
  3. [References] The reference list contains many works that are not cited in the text or are unrelated to the topic, including several self-citations involving the same authors. Examples include references on PCM microcapsules, augmented reality, and hardware accelerators. These citations should be removed or replaced with relevant literature on semi-supervised learning and cardiovascular disease prediction.
  4. [Section III.A] The equation for Semi-Supervised SVM is not fully introduced; in particular, the meaning and range of the slack variables ξ_j for unlabeled data and the role of C* should be explained in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper is an empirical model comparison, and its central comparison issue is a missing baseline, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain in which an output is defined in terms of the claimed result. The central comparison (Table I) contrasts semi-supervised models trained with 50% labeled data against supervised models trained with 100% labeled data; the absence of a supervised model trained on the same 50% labeled subset means the abstract's 'outperform' claim is not established, but this is an experimental-design gap, not a circular reduction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported by self-citation. The reference list contains many self-citations and unrelated citations, but none is load-bearing for the empirical results: model equations in Section III are standard definitions, and the BRFSS dataset is external. Because the paper's claims are purely empirical and the reported numbers do not reduce by construction to the inputs, no specific circular step can be identified under the required evidence standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the validity of self-reported CVD outcomes, on the assumption that unlabeled and labeled data share the same distribution, and on an undescribed sampling process. No model hyperparameters or baseline supervised model at matched labeled proportion are provided, so the empirical comparison is under-specified.

free parameters (1)
  • Model hyperparameters (SVM penalty C and C*, self-training/pseudo-labeling confidence threshold, Mean Teacher EMA…
    None of these are specified. Performance comparisons may be sensitive to these choices, and their omission prevents replication.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption BRFSS self-reported heart disease is a valid ground truth for cardiovascular disease.
    The binary outcome is self-reported, not clinically adjudicated; the paper does not discuss measurement error or validation.
  • domain assumption The unlabeled subset is drawn from the same distribution as the labeled subset.
    The paper randomly splits training data into labeled and unlabeled, but no covariate shift check or distributional comparison is given.
  • domain assumption The 20,544 sample is a random, representative subsample of the BRFSS dataset.
    The paper says 'after sampling from original dataset' but gives no sampling procedure, seed, or inclusion criteria.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cardiovascular Disease Detection By Leveraging Semi-Supervised Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WJTVQQJA

@misc{pith2026241210567,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cardiovascular Disease Detection By Leveraging Semi-Supervised Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WJTVQQJA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10567}
}
read the original abstract

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) persists as a primary cause of death on a global scale, which requires more effective and timely detection methods. Traditional supervised learning approaches for CVD detection rely heavily on large-labeled datasets, which are often difficult to obtain. This paper employs semi-supervised learning models to boost efficiency and accuracy of CVD detection when there are few labeled samples. By leveraging both labeled and vast amounts of unlabeled data, our approach demonstrates improvements in prediction performance, while reducing the dependency on labeled data. Experimental results in a publicly available dataset show that semi-supervised models outperform traditional supervised learning techniques, providing an intriguing approach for the initial identification of cardiovascular disease within clinical environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10567 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Data Workflow The overview of data work flow is illustrated in the flowchart ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. F1-Score of Semi-Supervised Models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. AUC of Semi-Supervised Models TABLE I SEMI-SUPERVISED VERSUS SUPERVISED MODELS Model Accuracy F1-Score AUC Semi-Supervised Models (50% training data labeled) Semi-Supervised SVM 0.7930 0.4681 0.7992 Self-Training 0.8003 0.5175 0.8425 Pseudo-Labeling 0.7904 0.4530 0.7624 Mean Teacher 0.7591 0.4876 0.7775 Pi-Model 0.7375 0.4547 0.7603 Supervised Models Logistic Regression 0.7986 0.5138 0.8443 Random Forest 0.7898 0.47… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ai-driven stylization of 3d environments, 2024

    Yuanbo Chen, Yixiao Kang, Yukun Song, Cyrus Vachha, and Sining Huang. Ai-driven stylization of 3d environments, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Graphical structural learning of rs-fmri data in heavy smokers

    Yiru Gong, Qimin Zhang, Huili Zheng, Zheyan Liu, and Shaohan Chen. Graphical structural learning of rs-fmri data in heavy smokers. In 2024 4th International Conference on Computer Science and Blockchain (CCSB), pages 434–438, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Pcm microcapsules applicable foam to improve the properties of thermal insulation and energy storage for cement-based material

    Yingzi Gu, Yunjian Li, Guangxu Ju, Rui Liang, and Guoxing Sun. Pcm microcapsules applicable foam to improve the properties of thermal insulation and energy storage for cement-based material. Construction and Building Materials , 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Green building material with superior thermal insulation and energy storage properties fabricated by paraffin and foam cement composite

    Yingzi Gu, Danqian Wang, Hongzhi Cui, Xuefei Chen, Liang Rui, and Guoxing Sun. Green building material with superior thermal insulation and energy storage properties fabricated by paraffin and foam cement composite. Construction and Building Materials , 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Artificial intelligence aspect of transportation analysis using large scale systems

    Tiechuan Hu, Wenbo Zhu, and Yuqi Yan. Artificial intelligence aspect of transportation analysis using large scale systems. In Proceedings of the 2023 6th Artificial Intelligence and Cloud Computing Conference , pages 54–59, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Ar overlay: Training image pose estimation on curved surface in a synthetic way

    Sining Huang, Yukun Song, Yixiao Kang, and Chang Yu. Ar overlay: Training image pose estimation on curved surface in a synthetic way. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14577 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Learning from teaching regularization: Generalizable correlations should be easy to imitate

    Can Jin, Tong Che, Hongwu Peng, Yiyuan Li, and Marco Pavone. Learning from teaching regularization: Generalizable correlations should be easy to imitate. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Tie memories to e- souvenirs: Personalized souvenirs with augmented reality for interactive learning in the museum

    Yixiao Kang, Yukun Song, and Sining Huang. Tie memories to e- souvenirs: Personalized souvenirs with augmented reality for interactive learning in the museum. Preprints, October 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    6: Simultaneous tracking, tagging and mapping for augmented reality

    Yixiao Kang, Yiyang Xu, Chao Ping Chen, Gang Li, and Ziyao Cheng. 6: Simultaneous tracking, tagging and mapping for augmented reality. In SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, volume 52, pages 31–33. Wiley Online Library, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Tie memories to e-souvenirs: Hybrid tangible ar souvenirs in the museum

    Yixiao Kang, Zhenglin Zhang, Meiqi Zhao, Xuanhui Yang, and Xubo Yang. Tie memories to e-souvenirs: Hybrid tangible ar souvenirs in the museum. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology , pages 1–3, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Predicting 30-day hospital readmission in medicare patients: Insights from an lstm deep learning model

    Xintao Li and Sibei Liu. Predicting 30-day hospital readmission in medicare patients: Insights from an lstm deep learning model. medRxiv, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    A comparative study of machine learning approaches for diabetes risk prediction: Insights from shap and feature importance

    Zheyan Liu, Qimin Zhang, Huili Zheng, Shaohan Chen, and Yiru Gong. A comparative study of machine learning approaches for diabetes risk prediction: Insights from shap and feature importance. Preprints, November 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Lingcn: Structural linearized graph convolutional network for homomorphically encrypted inference

    Hongwu Peng, Ran Ran, Yukui Luo, Jiahui Zhao, Shaoyi Huang, Kiran Thorat, Tong Geng, Chenghong Wang, Xiaolin Xu, Wujie Wen, et al. Lingcn: Structural linearized graph convolutional network for homomorphically encrypted inference. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Informat...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Maxk-gnn: Extremely fast gpu kernel design for accelerating graph neural networks training

    Hongwu Peng, Xi Xie, Kaustubh Shivdikar, Md Amit Hasan, Jiahui Zhao, Shaoyi Huang, Omer Khan, David Kaeli, and Caiwen Ding. Maxk-gnn: Extremely fast gpu kernel design for accelerating graph neural networks training. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Ar...

    2024

  7. [15]

    A systematic review of publications assessing reliability and validity of the behavioral risk factor surveillance system (brfss), 2004–2011

    Carol Pierannunzi, Shaohua Sean Hu, and Lina Balluz. A systematic review of publications assessing reliability and validity of the behavioral risk factor surveillance system (brfss), 2004–2011. BMC medical research methodology, 13:1–14, 2013

    2004

  8. [16]

    Harnessing XGBoost for robust biomarker selection of obsessive-compulsive disor- der (OCD) from adolescent brain cognitive development (ABCD) data

    Xinyu Shen, Qimin Zhang, Huili Zheng, and Weiwei Qi. Harnessing XGBoost for robust biomarker selection of obsessive-compulsive disor- der (OCD) from adolescent brain cognitive development (ABCD) data. In Fourth International Conference on Biomedicine and Bioinformatics Enginee...

    2024

  9. [17]

    A mixed- heuristic quantum-inspired simplified swarm optimization algorithm for scheduling of real-time tasks in the multiprocessor system

    Pei-Chiang Su, Shi-Yi Tan, Zhenyao Liu, and Wei-Chang Yeh. A mixed- heuristic quantum-inspired simplified swarm optimization algorithm for scheduling of real-time tasks in the multiprocessor system. Applied Soft Computing, 131:109807, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Research on prediction recommendation system based on improved markov model

    Zhizhong Wu, Xueshe Wang, Shuaishuai Huang, Haowei Yang, Danqing Ma, et al. Research on prediction recommendation system based on improved markov model. Advances in Computer, Signals and Systems , 8(5):87–97, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Accel- gcn: High-performance gpu accelerator design for graph convolution networks

    Xi Xie, Hongwu Peng, Amit Hasan, Shaoyi Huang, Jiahui Zhao, Haowen Fang, Wei Zhang, Tong Geng, Omer Khan, and Caiwen Ding. Accel- gcn: High-performance gpu accelerator design for graph convolution networks. In 2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design (IC...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Influencing factors of housing price in new york-analysis: Based on excel multi-regression model

    Yuqi Yan. Influencing factors of housing price in new york-analysis: Based on excel multi-regression model. 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Analysis of financial risk behavior prediction using deep learning and big data algorithms, 2024

    Haowei Yang, Zhan Cheng, Zhaoyang Zhang, Yuanshuai Luo, Shuaishuai Huang, and Ao Xiang. Analysis of financial risk behavior prediction using deep learning and big data algorithms, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Long-term trends in the distribution of ocean chlorophyll

    Dongran Zhai, Claudie Beaulieu, and Raphael M Kudela. Long-term trends in the distribution of ocean chlorophyll. Geophysical Research Letters, 51(7):e2023GL106577, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Comparative analysis of bayesian networks for breast cancer classifica- tion: Naive bayes vs

    Qimin Zhang, Zheng Huili, Gong Yiru, Liu Zheyan, and Chen Shaohan. Comparative analysis of bayesian networks for breast cancer classifica- tion: Naive bayes vs. tree-augmented naive bayes. 10 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    CU-Net: A U- Net Architecture for Efficient Brain-Tumor Segmentation on BraTS 2019 Dataset

    Qimin Zhang, Weiwei Qi, Huili Zheng, and Xinyu Shen. CU-Net: A U- Net Architecture for Efficient Brain-Tumor Segmentation on BraTS 2019 Dataset. In 2024 4th International Conference on Machine Learning and Intelligent Systems Engineering (MLISE) , pages 255–258, 2024

    2019

  17. [25]

    Optimization and application of cloud-based deep learning architecture for multi-source data prediction, 2024

    Yang Zhang, Fa Wang, Xin Huang, Xintao Li, Sibei Liu, and Hansong Zhang. Optimization and application of cloud-based deep learning architecture for multi-source data prediction, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Identification of Prognostic Biomarkers for Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma in Female Nonsmokers Using Machine Learning

    Huili Zheng, Qimin Zhang, Yiru Gong, Zheyan Liu, and Shaohan Chen. Identification of Prognostic Biomarkers for Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma in Female Nonsmokers Using Machine Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16068, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Deep learning solutions for pneumonia detection: Per- formance comparison of custom and transfer learning models

    Yihao Zhong, Yanan Liu, Erdi Gao, Changsong Wei, Zhuoyue Wang, and Chao Yan. Deep learning solutions for pneumonia detection: Per- formance comparison of custom and transfer learning models. medRxiv, pages 2024–06, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Adapi: Facilitating dnn model adaptivity for efficient private inference in edge computing

    Tong Zhou, Jiahui Zhao, Yukui Luo, Xi Xie, Wujie Wen, Caiwen Ding, and Xiaolin Xu. Adapi: Facilitating dnn model adaptivity for efficient private inference in edge computing. 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Optimizing distributed networking with big data scheduling and cloud computing

    Wenbo Zhu. Optimizing distributed networking with big data scheduling and cloud computing. In International Conference on Cloud Computing, Internet of Things, and Computer Applications (CICA 2022) , volume 12303, pages 23–28. SPIE, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Twitter sentiment analysis of covid vaccines

    Wenbo Zhu and Tiechuan Hu. Twitter sentiment analysis of covid vaccines. In 2021 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR) , pages 118–122, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Demonstration of chromocloth: Re-programmable multi-color textures through flexible and portable light source

    Yunyi Zhu, Cedric Honnet, Yixiao Kang, Junyi Zhu, Angelina J Zheng, Kyle Heinz, Grace Tang, Luca Musk, Michael Wessely, and Stefanie Mueller. Demonstration of chromocloth: Re-programmable multi-color textures through flexible and portable light source. In Adjunct Proceed- ings...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.