Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 144 references

Self-Supervised Learning for Graph-Structured Data in Healthcare Applications: A Comprehensive Review

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review claims to be the first comprehensive comparison of self-supervised learning methods on graph-structured healthcare data, organizing the field into contrastive, generative, and predictive approaches.

desk verdict Useful intersection survey whose 'first comprehensive' claim is unverifiable until a search protocol is reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05312 v1 pith:GTEHLOQZ submitted 2024-11-28 cs.LG

Safa Ben Atitallah , Chaima Ben Rabah , Maha Driss , Wadii Boulila , Anis Koubaa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords self-supervisedlearninggraphneuralnetworksgraph-structureddatahealthcarediseasepredictionmedicalimagingdrugdiscoverycontrastive
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

This review argues that self-supervised learning (SSL) applied to graph-structured data is a distinct and increasingly viable approach for healthcare analytics, and that the literature on this intersection lacks an organized, comparative resource. The authors claim their survey is the first comprehensive review to compare graph-based SSL methods specifically in healthcare. To support that claim, they organize existing work into three SSL families — contrastive, generative, and predictive — and map them onto healthcare tasks such as disease prediction, medical imaging analysis, and drug discovery. The value of the survey, if the claim holds, is a single repository that lets researchers see which graph SSL methods, training strategies, datasets, and metrics are used for which medical problems.

What carries the argument

The organizing taxonomy carries the review: graph SSL methods are divided into contrastive (maximizing agreement between augmented views), generative (reconstructing masked node features or graph structure), and predictive (predicting missing properties from self-generated pseudo-labels). Training strategies — pre-training with fine-tuning, joint training, and unsupervised representation training — and GNN backbones (GCN, GraphSAGE, GAT, GAE) are compared under the same headings. This taxonomy is what makes the comparison across healthcare applications possible.

What would settle it

A bibliographic search for surveys published before 2024 with titles or abstracts combining self-supervised learning, graph data, and healthcare would settle the primary claim: finding even one earlier comprehensive review, or showing that major graph-SSL healthcare studies are absent from the tables, would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is organizational rather than experimental: graph-based SSL in healthcare can be systematically classified, and once classified it reveals clear patterns — contrastive learning dominates, GCN is the most common backbone, and SSL's value is concentrated in label-scarce medical settings. The paper asserts that no prior survey covered this intersection, so it positions itself as the first comprehensive map of the area.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reviewed papers are a complete and unbiased sample of the literature on graph-based SSL in healthcare; no search protocol or inclusion criteria are given, so the 'first comprehensive review' claim stands on that unstated assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A reader choosing a graph SSL method for a healthcare problem can use the survey's taxonomy to narrow the choice: contrastive methods for label-scarce prediction tasks, generative methods for graph reconstruction, and predictive methods for missing-attribute tasks.
  • The reported patterns imply that GCN and contrastive learning are the current defaults, so new work should either build on these choices or justify why a different configuration is needed.
  • SSL's reduced reliance on labeled data makes it a route to privacy-preserving healthcare modeling, since pre-training on unlabeled data avoids exposing sensitive annotations.
  • Datasets like MIMIC-III, DrugBank, and HMDAD are identified as public benchmarks, enabling future comparisons on common ground.
  • The survey's discussion points to pre-training large graph SSL models on unlabeled molecular and clinical data as a promising path for drug discovery and temporal health event prediction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the survey's selection is representative, the field is still young and benchmark practices are not standardized; a natural next step would be a shared benchmark suite that evaluates contrastive, generative, and predictive graph SSL on the same healthcare datasets.
  • Editorial inference: the 'first comprehensive review' claim is about coverage, and coverage claims become stronger when accompanied by an explicit search protocol; adding one would let readers verify completeness.
  • Editorial inference: the survey's taxonomy could also be applied to adjacent domains, such as self-supervised graph learning for environmental or social networks, where labeled data are similarly scarce.
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. This manuscript is a survey of self-supervised learning (SSL) applied to graph-structured data in healthcare. It introduces GNN architectures (GCN, GraphSAGE, GAT, GAE), taxonomies of graph SSL methods (contrastive, generative, predictive), training strategies, and a review of healthcare applications in predictive modeling, medical imaging, biomarker detection, and drug discovery. It also lists public and private datasets, evaluation metrics, challenges, and future directions. The central claim, stated in the abstract and Section 1.2, is that this is the first comprehensive review of SSL for graph data in healthcare.

Significance. If the coverage is complete and accurate, the survey would be a useful organized resource for researchers at the intersection of graph SSL and healthcare. The paper has clear strengths: a structured taxonomy of SSL methods, comparative tables of applications, a list of public datasets with download links, and an outline of open challenges. It also makes an explicit falsifiable priority claim ('first comprehensive review'), which increases the burden on the authors to demonstrate systematic and unbiased literature coverage. There are no experiments to check; the value rests on the accuracy and completeness of the reporting, which is where several problems arise.

major comments (4)
  1. [§1.2 and abstract] The 'first comprehensive review' claim is not verifiable as written. No search methodology is reported: there is no list of databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM DL), no query terms, no explicit date range, no inclusion/exclusion criteria, and no screening or eligibility counts. Because the headline contribution is priority and completeness, a reader cannot distinguish a comprehensive review from a curated sample. The authors should add a methodology section describing the retrieval and screening protocol, or soften the priority claim to a more defensible scope statement.
  2. [§5.1 vs. Table 10] There are direct numerical contradictions between the text and Table 10. Section 5.1 states MIMIC-III has over 112,000 patients, but Table 10 lists 40,000; Section 5.1 states MIMIC-IV has 524,000 patients, but Table 10 lists 60,000; Section 5.1 states CBIS-DDSM contains 2,620 mammogram images, but Table 10 lists 1,566. These inconsistencies undermine the reliability of the dataset reference table, which is a central resource of the survey. The numbers should be corrected and cross-checked against the cited sources.
  3. [§4.4, bullet 3] The claim that 'SSL methods generally achieve excellent performance, surpassing traditional supervised learning models' is unsupported. No performance numbers, effect sizes, or baseline comparisons are aggregated in Tables 6-9, and the narrative does not provide a systematic comparison. Since the paper promises to 'critically evaluate the performance of different SSL methods', this assertion needs to be either substantiated with a quantitative comparison or qualified to describe what individual studies report.
  4. [Table 6 and references [78], [83]] The same work appears twice: reference [78] and reference [83] both list 'Self-supervised representation learning on electronic health records with graph kernel infomax' by Yao et al., and both are cited in Table 6 as separate studies. This duplicate entry inflates the count of reviewed papers and creates confusion about the actual coverage. The authors should merge the entries or clarify whether these are distinct versions or publications.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2.1, Eq. (6)] The notation in Equation (6) is inconsistent: the joint density is written as P(ri, rh) instead of P(ri, rj), and the marginal densities are written as P(hi) and P(hj) instead of P(ri) and P(rj). This should be corrected for clarity.
  2. [§5.3] The text appears to swap the roles of the Dice score and the Concordance index: the Dice score measures overlap and is standard for segmentation, while the C-index assesses ranking in censored survival or risk prediction. The assignment as written is likely reversed.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting issues, including 'Zheng el al.' (Section 2.2.1), 'GraphSage' for GraphSAGE, 'V elickovic' for Veličković, 'futher' for further, and a stray 'T able' in the text. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  4. [Table 10] The table lists 'TUdataset' with no corresponding description in Section 5.1, and the 'AD1 & PTSD11 & ADHD1 & ASD1' and 'AD2 & PTSD12 & ADHD2 & ASD2' entries have awkward formatting. The dataset descriptions and table entries should be aligned.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a literature survey and makes no quantitative derivation whose output is equivalent to its inputs; its self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This manuscript is a review/survey, not a derivational paper. It introduces no fitted parameters, no prediction equations, and no theorem whose conclusion is constructed from its own assumptions. The central claim, that this is 'the first comprehensive review of the literature on SSL applied to graph data in healthcare,' is an external bibliographic assertion about coverage, not a result derived from the paper's own tables or equations. The related-work comparison in Table 1 and Section 1.1 supports the existence of a gap by describing prior surveys that omit either graph structure or healthcare applications, but that comparison is an argument about scope, not a circular reduction. The only self-citations appear as ordinary background references: [2] in the introduction for AI in healthcare and [135] in the future-directions discussion of federated learning. Neither is used to justify the review's central claim, to establish a uniqueness result, or to replace an otherwise missing argument; they are incidental and non-load-bearing. The absence of a systematic search protocol is a legitimate verifiability concern about the completeness claim, but it is not circularity: a missing methodology does not make the conclusion equivalent to its inputs. No equation is reused as its own prediction, no fitted quantity is renamed as an outcome, and no prior work by the same authors is invoked as the sole justification for a contested premise. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The survey contains no fitted parameters and no invented entities. Its supporting statements are borrowed from prior literature, so the main epistemic risk is whether the selection of papers and dataset descriptions is accurate and complete. Separate internal inconsistencies (Table 10 vs. Section 5.1, notation in Eq. 6) lower confidence in the review's reliability.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard GNN and SSL definitions from prior work are accurate.
    Sections 2.1 and 3.2 present equations 1-8 as background; the review does not re-derive them, so their correctness depends on the original cited papers.
  • domain assumption The contrastive/generative/predictive taxonomy is a complete organizational scheme.
    Section 3.2 introduces the categories without a completeness argument; the scheme is carried over from earlier graph-SSL surveys [14,15,16,53].
  • domain assumption The cited application papers are representative of graph-SSL in healthcare.
    The comprehensive-review claim in the abstract and Section 1.2 requires representativeness, but no search strategy or screening process is reported.
  • domain assumption Dataset descriptions in Table 10 are accurate.
    Section 5.1 relies on these descriptions; Table 10 conflicts with the text on MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV counts, so this assumption is partially violated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-Supervised Learning for Graph-Structured Data in Healthcare Applications: A Comprehensive Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GTEHLOQZ

@misc{pith2026241205312,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-Supervised Learning for Graph-Structured Data in Healthcare Applications: A Comprehensive Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GTEHLOQZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05312}
}
read the original abstract

The abundance of complex and interconnected healthcare data offers numerous opportunities to improve prediction, diagnosis, and treatment. Graph-structured data, which includes entities and their relationships, is well-suited for capturing complex connections. Effectively utilizing this data often requires strong and efficient learning algorithms, especially when dealing with limited labeled data. It is increasingly important for downstream tasks in various domains to utilize self-supervised learning (SSL) as a paradigm for learning and optimizing effective representations from unlabeled data. In this paper, we thoroughly review SSL approaches specifically designed for graph-structured data in healthcare applications. We explore the challenges and opportunities associated with healthcare data and assess the effectiveness of SSL techniques in real-world healthcare applications. Our discussion encompasses various healthcare settings, such as disease prediction, medical image analysis, and drug discovery. We critically evaluate the performance of different SSL methods across these tasks, highlighting their strengths, limitations, and potential future research directions. Ultimately, this review aims to be a valuable resource for both researchers and practitioners looking to utilize SSL for graph-structured data in healthcare, paving the way for improved outcomes and insights in this critical field. To the best of our knowledge, this work represents the first comprehensive review of the literature on SSL applied to graph data in healthcare.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05312 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The number of Google searches for the terms Graph Learning and SSL from 2020 to 2024, according to Google trends. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visual overview of the paper structure depicting key sections and subsections. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A general GNN architecture. While GNNs have shown good performance in dealing with graph-structured data, they have several drawbacks [21]. A major drawback is the computational cost involved with the model’s hierarchical feature-extraction tech￾nique. In each iteration of this approach, the same parameters are used as the network transfers information from neighboring nodes through a neural network, eventually reac… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: illustrates the standard SSL framework. The model is trained on a self-supervised task with unlabeled data during the initial phase. The main goal in this phase is to get useful representations and features from data without the need for explicit labels. Pretext tasks …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The graph SSL categories. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The commonly used graph augmentation techniques. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The common training strategies for graph SSL. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparative overview of the reviewed works categorized by the self-supervised learning method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

144 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [78]

    H.-R. Yao, N. Cao, K. Russell, D.-C. Chang, O. Frieder, J. T. Fineman, Self-supervised representation learning on electronic health records with graph kernel infomax, ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [83]

    H.-R. Yao, N. Cao, K. Russell, D.-C. Chang, O. Frieder, J. T. Fineman, Self-supervised representation learning on electronic health records with graph kernel infomax, ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare 5 (2) (2024) 1–28

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Y. Y. Aung, D. C. Wong, D. S. Ting, The promise of artificial intelligence: a review of the opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence in healthcare, British medical bulletin 139 (1) (2021) 4–15

    2021

  4. [2]

    S. B. Atitallah, M. Driss, W. Boulila, A. Koubaa, Enhancing early alzheimer’s disease detection through big data and ensemble few-shot learning, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2024)

    2024

  5. [3]

    M. A. A. Calazans, F. A. Ferreira, F. A. Santos, F. Madeiro, J. B. Lima, Machine learning and graph signal processing applied to healthcare: A review, Bioengineering 11 (7) (2024) 671

    2024

  6. [4]

    F. Xia, K. Sun, S. Yu, A. Aziz, L. Wan, S. Pan, H. Liu, Graph learning: A survey, IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence 2 (2) (2021) 109–127

    2021

  7. [5]

    V. Rani, M. Kumar, A. Gupta, M. Sachdeva, A. Mittal, K. Kumar, Self-supervised learning for medical image analysis: a comprehensive review, Evolving Systems (2024) 1–27

    2024

  8. [6]

    Z. Liu, K. Kainth, A. Zhou, T. W. Deyer, Z. A. Fayad, H. Greenspan, X. Mei, A review of self-supervised, generative, and few-shot deep learning methods for data-limited magnetic resonance imaging segmentation, NMR in Biomedicine (2024) e5143

    2024

Show all 144 references
  1. [7]

    VanBerlo, J

    B. VanBerlo, J. Hoey, A. Wong, A survey of the impact of self-supervised pretraining for diagnostic tasks in medical x-ray, ct, mri, and ultrasound, BMC Medical Imaging 24 (1) (2024) 79

    2024

  2. [8]

    K. Pani, I. Chawla, Examining the quality of learned representations in self-supervised medical image analysis: a comprehensive review and empirical study, Multimedia Tools and Applications (2024) 1–31

    2024

  3. [9]

    Huang, A

    S.-C. Huang, A. Pareek, M. Jensen, M. P. Lungren, S. Yeung, A. S. Chaudhari, Self-supervised learning for medical image classification: a systematic review and implementation guidelines, NPJ Digital Medicine 6 (1) (2023) 74. 36

    2023

  4. [10]

    Krishnan, P

    R. Krishnan, P. Rajpurkar, E. J. Topol, Self-supervised learning in medicine and healthcare, Nature Biomed- ical Engineering 6 (12) (2022) 1346–1352

    2022

  5. [11]

    Shurrab, R

    S. Shurrab, R. Duwairi, Self-supervised learning methods and applications in medical imaging analysis: A survey, PeerJ Computer Science 8 (2022) e1045

    2022

  6. [12]

    Chowdhury, J

    A. Chowdhury, J. Rosenthal, J. Waring, R. Umeton, Applying self-supervised learning to medicine: review of the state of the art and medical implementations, in: Informatics, Vol. 8, MDPI, 2021, p. 59

    2021

  7. [13]

    H. Lu, S. Uddin, Disease prediction using graph machine learning based on electronic health data: A review of approaches and trends, in: Healthcare, Vol. 11, MDPI, 2023, p. 1031

    2023

  8. [14]

    Y. Liu, M. Jin, S. Pan, C. Zhou, Y. Zheng, F. Xia, S. Y. Philip, Graph self-supervised learning: A survey, IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering 35 (6) (2022) 5879–5900

    2022

  9. [15]

    Y. Xie, Z. Xu, J. Zhang, Z. Wang, S. Ji, Self-supervised learning of graph neural networks: A unified review, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 45 (2) (2022) 2412–2429

    2022

  10. [16]

    X. Liu, F. Zhang, Z. Hou, L. Mian, Z. Wang, J. Zhang, J. Tang, Self-supervised learning: Generative or contrastive, IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering 35 (1) (2021) 857–876

    2021

  11. [17]

    Jaiswal, A

    A. Jaiswal, A. R. Babu, M. Z. Zadeh, D. Banerjee, F. Makedon, A survey on contrastive self-supervised learning, Technologies 9 (1) (2020) 2

    2020

  12. [18]

    W.-C. Wang, E. Ahn, D. Feng, J. Kim, A review of predictive and contrastive self-supervised learning for medical images, Machine Intelligence Research 20 (4) (2023) 483–513

    2023

  13. [19]

    M. Gori, G. Monfardini, F. Scarselli, A new model for learning in graph domains, in: Proceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005., Vol. 2, IEEE, 2005, pp. 729–734

    2005

  14. [20]

    S. G. Paul, A. Saha, M. Z. Hasan, S. R. H. Noori, A. Moustafa, A systematic review of graph neural network in healthcare-based applications: recent advances, trends, and future directions, IEEE Access (2024)

    2024

  15. [21]

    Z. Wu, S. Pan, F. Chen, G. Long, C. Zhang, S. Y. Philip, A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks, IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 32 (1) (2020) 4–24

    2020

  16. [22]

    T. N. Kipf, M. Welling, Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Hamilton, Z

    W. Hamilton, Z. Ying, J. Leskovec, Inductive representation learning on large graphs, Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  18. [24]

    Velickovic, G

    P. Velickovic, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Lio, Y. Bengio, et al., Graph attention networks, stat 1050 (20) (2017) 10–48550

    2017

  19. [25]

    T. N. Kipf, M. Welling, Variational graph auto-encoders, arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07308 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  20. [26]

    M. Sun, S. Zhao, C. Gilvary, O. Elemento, J. Zhou, F. Wang, Graph convolutional networks for computational drug development and discovery, Briefings in bioinformatics 21 (3) (2020) 919–935

    2020

  21. [27]

    K. Jha, S. Saha, H. Singh, Prediction of protein–protein interaction using graph neural networks, Scientific Reports 12 (1) (2022) 8360. 37

    2022

  22. [28]

    Bian, X.-J

    C. Bian, X.-J. Lei, F.-X. Wu, Gatcda: predicting circrna-disease associations based on graph attention net- work, Cancers 13 (11) (2021) 2595

    2021

  23. [29]

    C. Ji, Y. Wang, J. Ni, C. Zheng, Y. Su, Predicting mirna-disease associations based on heterogeneous graph attention networks, Frontiers in genetics 12 (2021) 727744

    2021

  24. [30]

    Nikolentzos, M

    G. Nikolentzos, M. Vazirgiannis, C. Xypolopoulos, M. Lingman, E. G. Brandt, Synthetic electronic health records generated with variational graph autoencoders, npj Digital Medicine 6 (1) (2023) 83

    2023

  25. [31]

    H. Lu, S. Uddin, A weighted patient network-based framework for predicting chronic diseases using graph neural networks, Scientific reports 11 (1) (2021) 22607

    2021

  26. [32]

    Z. Sun, H. Yin, H. Chen, T. Chen, L. Cui, F. Yang, Disease prediction via graph neural networks, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 25 (3) (2020) 818–826

    2020

  27. [33]

    Zheng, Z

    S. Zheng, Z. Zhu, Z. Liu, Z. Guo, Y. Liu, Y. Yang, Y. Zhao, Multi-modal graph learning for disease prediction, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 41 (9) (2022) 2207–2216

    2022

  28. [34]

    Zheng, S

    K. Zheng, S. Yu, L. Chen, L. Dang, B. Chen, Bpi-gnn: Interpretable brain network-based psychiatric diagnosis and subtyping, NeuroImage 292 (2024) 120594

    2024

  29. [35]

    Zheng, S

    K. Zheng, S. Yu, B. Chen, Ci-gnn: A granger causality-inspired graph neural network for interpretable brain network-based psychiatric diagnosis, Neural Networks 172 (2024) 106147

    2024

  30. [36]

    Zhang, Y

    L. Zhang, Y. Zhao, T. Che, S. Li, X. Wang, Graph neural networks for image-guided disease diagnosis: A review, iRADIOLOGY 1 (2) (2023) 151–166

    2023

  31. [37]

    Lee, S.-K

    Y.-W. Lee, S.-K. Huang, R.-F. Chang, Chexgat: A disease correlation-aware network for thorax disease diagnosis from chest x-ray images, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 132 (2022) 102382

    2022

  32. [38]

    Bagwan, N

    F. Bagwan, N. Pise, A precise and timely graph-based approach to identify sars covid19 infection from medical imaging data using isocovnet, International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology 33 (4) (2023) 1160– 1176

    2023

  33. [39]

    K. Song, H. Park, J. Lee, A. Kim, J. Jung, Covid-19 infection inference with graph neural networks, Scientific Reports 13 (1) (2023) 11469

    2023

  34. [40]

    Gaggion, L

    N. Gaggion, L. Mansilla, C. Mosquera, D. H. Milone, E. Ferrante, Improving anatomical plausibility in medical image segmentation via hybrid graph neural networks: applications to chest x-ray analysis, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 42 (2) (2022) 546–556

    2022

  35. [41]

    Kumar, A

    A. Kumar, A. R. Tripathi, S. C. Satapathy, Y.-D. Zhang, Sars-net: Covid-19 detection from chest x-rays by combining graph convolutional network and convolutional neural network, Pattern Recognition 122 (2022) 108255

    2022

  36. [42]

    Gaudelet, B

    T. Gaudelet, B. Day, A. R. Jamasb, J. Soman, C. Regep, G. Liu, J. B. Hayter, R. Vickers, C. Roberts, J. Tang, et al., Utilizing graph machine learning within drug discovery and development, Briefings in bioinformatics 22 (6) (2021) bbab159

    2021

  37. [43]

    K. Han, B. Lakshminarayanan, J. Liu, Reliable graph neural networks for drug discovery under distributional shift, arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.12951 (2021). 38

    2021 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Cheung, J

    M. Cheung, J. M. Moura, Graph neural networks for covid-19 drug discovery, in: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), IEEE, 2020, pp. 5646–5648

    2020

  39. [45]

    P. Li, J. Wang, Y. Qiao, H. Chen, Y. Yu, X. Yao, P. Gao, G. Xie, S. Song, Learn molecular representations from large-scale unlabeled molecules for drug discovery, arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.11175 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Bongini, M

    P. Bongini, M. Bianchini, F. Scarselli, Molecular generative graph neural networks for drug discovery, Neuro- computing 450 (2021) 242–252

    2021

  41. [47]

    Y. Wang, Z. Yang, Q. Yao, Accurate and interpretable drug-drug interaction prediction enabled by knowledge subgraph learning, Communications Medicine 4 (1) (2024) 59

    2024

  42. [48]

    H. Luo, C. Zhu, J. Wang, G. Zhang, J. Luo, C. Yan, Prediction of drug–disease associations based on reinforcement symmetric metric learning and graph convolution network, Frontiers in Pharmacology 15 (2024) 1337764

    2024

  43. [49]

    V. Rani, S. T. Nabi, M. Kumar, A. Mittal, K. Kumar, Self-supervised learning: A succinct review, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 30 (4) (2023) 2761–2775

    2023

  44. [50]

    Zhang, H

    C. Zhang, H. Zheng, Y. Gu, Dive into the details of self-supervised learning for medical image analysis, Medical Image Analysis 89 (2023) 102879

    2023

  45. [51]

    Khoshraftar, A

    S. Khoshraftar, A. An, A survey on graph representation learning methods, ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 15 (1) (2024) 1–55

    2024

  46. [52]

    Y. Wang, W. Jin, T. Derr, Graph neural networks: Self-supervised learning, Graph Neural Networks: Foun- dations, Frontiers, and Applications (2022) 391–420

    2022

  47. [53]

    L. Wu, H. Lin, C. Tan, Z. Gao, S. Z. Li, Self-supervised learning on graphs: Contrastive, generative, or predictive, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 35 (4) (2021) 4216–4235

    2021

  48. [54]

    S. Yu, H. Huang, M. N. Dao, F. Xia, Graph augmentation learning, in: Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2022, 2022, pp. 1063–1072

    2022

  49. [55]

    W. Hu, B. Liu, J. Gomes, M. Zitnik, P. Liang, V. Pande, J. Leskovec, Strategies for pre-training graph neural networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.12265 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Y. Cui, Z. Wang, X. Wang, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhang, T. Pan, Z. Zhang, S. Li, Y. Guo, T. Akutsu, et al., Smg: self-supervised masked graph learning for cancer gene identification, Briefings in Bioinformatics 24 (6) (2023) bbad406

    2023

  51. [57]

    Y. Zhu, Y. Xu, F. Yu, Q. Liu, S. Wu, L. Wang, Graph contrastive learning with adaptive augmentation, in: Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, 2021, pp. 2069–2080

    2021

  52. [58]

    A. Ali, J. Li, Features based adaptive augmentation for graph contrastive learning, Digital Signal Processing 145 (2024) 104312

    2024

  53. [59]

    Y. Jiao, Y. Xiong, J. Zhang, Y. Zhang, T. Zhang, Y. Zhu, Sub-graph contrast for scalable self-supervised graph representation learning, in: 2020 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM), IEEE, 2020, pp. 222–231. 39

    2020

  54. [60]

    Subramonian, Motif-driven contrastive learning of graph representations, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol

    A. Subramonian, Motif-driven contrastive learning of graph representations, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35, 2021, pp. 15980–15981

    2021

  55. [61]

    Suresh, P

    S. Suresh, P. Li, C. Hao, J. Neville, Adversarial graph augmentation to improve graph contrastive learning, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021) 15920–15933

    2021

  56. [62]

    S. Yu, H. Wang, M. Hua, C. Liang, Y. Sun, Sparse graph cascade multi-kernel fusion contrastive learning for microbe–disease association prediction, Expert Systems with Applications 252 (2024) 124092

    2024

  57. [63]

    K. Ding, Z. Xu, H. Tong, H. Liu, Data augmentation for deep graph learning: A survey, ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 24 (2) (2022) 61–77

    2022

  58. [64]

    S. Jin, Y. Zhang, H. Yu, M. Lu, Sadr: self-supervised graph learning with adaptive denoising for drug repositioning, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (2024)

    2024

  59. [65]

    J. Zeng, P. Xie, Contrastive self-supervised learning for graph classification, in: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35, 2021, pp. 10824–10832

    2021

  60. [66]

    G. E. Hinton, R. R. Salakhutdinov, Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks, science 313 (5786) (2006) 504–507

    2006

  61. [67]

    P. Baldi, Autoencoders, unsupervised learning, and deep architectures, in: Proceedings of ICML workshop on unsupervised and transfer learning, JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2012, pp. 37–49

    2012

  62. [68]

    H. Liu, X. Fu, H. Chen, J. Shang, H. Zhou, W. Zhe, X. Yao, Developing explainable models for lncrna-targeted drug discovery using graph autoencoders, Future Generation Computer Systems (2024)

    2024

  63. [69]

    C. Liu, S. Wu, R. Li, D. Jiang, H.-S. Wong, Self-supervised graph completion for incomplete multi-view clustering, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2023)

    2023

  64. [70]

    Y. You, T. Chen, Z. Wang, Y. Shen, When does self-supervision help graph convolutional networks?, in: international conference on machine learning, PMLR, 2020, pp. 10871–10880

    2020

  65. [71]

    S. Kim, S. Kang, F. Bu, S. Y. Lee, J. Yoo, K. Shin, Hypeboy: Generative self-supervised representation learning on hypergraphs, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00638 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  66. [72]

    X. Zang, X. Zhao, B. Tang, Hierarchical molecular graph self-supervised learning for property prediction, Communications Chemistry 6 (1) (2023) 34

    2023

  67. [73]

    X. Xu, X. Xu, Y. Sun, X. Liu, X. Li, G. Xie, F. Wang, Predictive modeling of clinical events with mutual enhancement between longitudinal patient records and medical knowledge graph, in: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), IEEE, 2021, pp. 777–786

    2021

  68. [74]

    S. Tang, J. A. Dunnmon, K. Saab, X. Zhang, Q. Huang, F. Dubost, D. L. Rubin, C. Lee-Messer, Self-supervised graph neural networks for improved electroencephalographic seizure analysis, arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08336 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  69. [75]

    Z. Zhao, Y. Li, Y. Zou, R. Li, R. Zhang, A survey on self-supervised pre-training of graph foundation models: A knowledge-based perspective, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16137 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  70. [76]

    Akkas, A

    S. Akkas, A. Azad, Jgcl: Joint self-supervised and supervised graph contrastive learning, in: Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2022, 2022, pp. 1099–1105. 40

    2022

  71. [77]

    Y. Zhu, Y. Xu, F. Yu, Q. Liu, S. Wu, Unsupervised graph representation learning with cluster-aware self- training and refining, ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 14 (5) (2023) 1–21

    2023

  72. [79]

    T. K. K. Ho, N. Armanfard, Self-supervised learning for anomalous channel detection in eeg graphs: Appli- cation to seizure analysis, in: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 37, 2023, pp. 7866–7874

    2023

  73. [80]

    C. Lu, C. K. Reddy, Y. Ning, Self-supervised graph learning with hyperbolic embedding for temporal health event prediction, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 53 (4) (2021) 2124–2136

    2021

  74. [81]

    Y. Xu, X. Chu, K. Yang, Z. Wang, P. Zou, H. Ding, J. Zhao, Y. Wang, B. Xie, Seqcare: Sequential training with external medical knowledge graph for diagnosis prediction in healthcare data, in: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, 2023, pp. 2819–2830

    2023

  75. [82]

    X. Ruan, C. Jiang, P. Lin, Y. Lin, J. Liu, S. Huang, X. Liu, Msgcl: inferring mirna–disease associations based on multi-view self-supervised graph structure contrastive learning, Briefings in Bioinformatics 24 (2) (2023) bbac623

    2023

  76. [84]

    J. Xie, J. Rao, J. Xie, H. Zhao, Y. Yang, Predicting disease-gene associations through self-supervised mutual infomax graph convolution network, Computers in Biology and Medicine 170 (2024) 108048

    2024

  77. [85]

    G. Wen, P. Cao, L. Liu, J. Yang, X. Zhang, F. Wang, O. R. Zaiane, Graph self-supervised learning with application to brain networks analysis, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2023)

    2023

  78. [86]

    Sehanobish, N

    A. Sehanobish, N. Ravindra, D. van Dijk, Gaining insight into sars-cov-2 infection and covid-19 severity using self-supervised edge features and graph neural networks, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35, 2021, pp. 4864–4873

    2021

  79. [87]

    H. Lu, T. Jin, H. Wei, M. Nappi, H. Li, S. Wan, Soft-orthogonal constrained dual-stream encoder with self- supervised clustering network for brain functional connectivity data, Expert Systems with Applications 244 (2024) 122898

    2024

  80. [88]

    S. Jung, S. Wang, D. Lee, Cancergate: Prediction of cancer-driver genes using graph attention autoencoders, Computers in Biology and Medicine (2024) 108568

    2024

  81. [89]

    L. Peng, N. Wang, J. Xu, X. Zhu, X. Li, Gate: Graph cca for temporal self-supervised learning for label- efficient fmri analysis, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 42 (2) (2022) 391–402

    2022

  82. [90]

    X. Wang, L. Yao, I. Rekik, Y. Zhang, Contrastive functional connectivity graph learning for population- based fmri classification, in: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Springer, 2022, pp. 221–230

    2022

  83. [91]

    J. Choi, H. Lee, B.-H. Kim, J. Lee, Joint-embedding masked autoencoder for self-supervised learning of dynamic functional connectivity from the human brain, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06432 (2024). 41

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Ibrahim, S

    M. Ibrahim, S. Henna, G. Cullen, Multi-graph convolutional neural network for breast cancer multi-task classification, in: Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science, Springer, 2022, pp. 40–54

    2022

  85. [93]

    L. Sun, K. Yu, K. Batmanghelich, Context matters: Graph-based self-supervised representation learning for medical images, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35, 2021, pp. 4874–4882

    2021

  86. [94]

    Y. Ozen, S. Aksoy, K. K¨ osemehmeto˘ glu, S. ¨Onder, A. ¨Uner, Self-supervised learning with graph neural networks for region of interest retrieval in histopathology, in: 2020 25th International conference on pattern recognition (ICPR), IEEE, 2021, pp. 6329–6334

    2020

  87. [95]

    J. Lin, Q. Cai, M. Lin, Multi-label classification of fundus images with graph convolutional network and self-supervised learning, IEEE Signal Processing Letters 28 (2021) 454–458

    2021

  88. [96]

    R. Guo, J. Sun, C. Zhang, X. Qian, A self-supervised metric learning framework for the arising-from-chair assessment of parkinsonians with graph convolutional networks, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 32 (9) (2022) 6461–6471

    2022

  89. [97]

    M. Endo, K. L. Poston, E. V. Sullivan, L. Fei-Fei, K. M. Pohl, E. Adeli, Gaitforemer: Self-supervised pre- training of transformers via human motion forecasting for few-shot gait impairment severity estimation, in: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Comput...

    2022

  90. [98]

    R. Guo, H. Li, C. Zhang, X. Qian, A tree-structure-guided graph convolutional network with contrastive learning for the assessment of parkinsonian hand movements, Medical Image Analysis 81 (2022) 102560

    2022

  91. [99]

    R. Guo, J. Sun, C. Zhang, X. Qian, A contrastive graph convolutional network for toe-tapping assessment in parkinson’s disease, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 32 (12) (2022) 8864–8874

    2022

  92. [100]

    MH Nguyen, H

    D. MH Nguyen, H. Nguyen, N. Diep, T. N. Pham, T. Cao, B. Nguyen, P. Swoboda, N. Ho, S. Albarqouni, P. Xie, et al., Lvm-med: Learning large-scale self-supervised vision models for medical imaging via second- order graph matching, Advances in Neural Information Processing System...

    2024

  93. [101]

    Z. Wang, J. Li, Z. Pan, W. Li, A. Sisk, H. Ye, W. Speier, C. W. Arnold, Hierarchical graph pathomic network for progression free survival prediction, in: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention– MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, France,...

    2021

  94. [102]

    T. S. Nguyen, S. Lee, J. Lee, L. V. Nguyen, O.-J. Lee, et al., Companion animal disease diagnostics based on literal-aware medical knowledge graph representation learning, IEEE Access (2023)

    2023

  95. [103]

    Aryal, N

    M. Aryal, N. Y. Soltani, Context-aware self-supervised learning of whole slide images, IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (2024)

    2024

  96. [104]

    Zhang, X

    P. Zhang, X. Hu, G. Li, L. Deng, Antiviraldl: Computational antiviral drug repurposing using graph neural network and self-supervised learning, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2023)

    2023

  97. [105]

    Y. Rong, Y. Bian, T. Xu, W. Xie, Y. Wei, W. Huang, J. Huang, Self-supervised graph transformer on large-scale molecular data, Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020) 12559–12571. 42

    2020

  98. [106]

    C. Zhao, S. Liu, F. Huang, S. Liu, W. Zhang, Csgnn: Contrastive self-supervised graph neural network for molecular interaction prediction., in: IJCAI, 2021, pp. 3756–3763

    2021

  99. [107]

    H. Wang, J. Kaddour, S. Liu, J. Tang, J. Lasenby, Q. Liu, Evaluating self-supervised learning for molecular graph embeddings, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  100. [108]

    P. Li, J. Wang, Y. Qiao, H. Chen, Y. Yu, X. Yao, P. Gao, G. Xie, S. Song, An effective self-supervised frame- work for learning expressive molecular global representations to drug discovery, Briefings in Bioinformatics 22 (6) (2021) bbab109

    2021

  101. [109]

    Y. Wang, J. Song, Q. Dai, X. Duan, Hierarchical negative sampling based graph contrastive learning approach for drug-disease association prediction, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2024)

    2024

  102. [110]

    A. E. Johnson, T. J. Pollard, L. Shen, L.-w. H. Lehman, M. Feng, M. Ghassemi, B. Moody, P. Szolovits, L. Anthony Celi, R. G. Mark, Mimic-iii, a freely accessible critical care database, Scientific data 3 (1) (2016) 1–9

    2016

  103. [111]

    A. E. Johnson, L. Bulgarelli, L. Shen, A. Gayles, A. Shammout, S. Horng, T. J. Pollard, S. Hao, B. Moody, B. Gow, et al., Mimic-iv, a freely accessible electronic health record dataset, Scientific data 10 (1) (2023) 1

    2023

  104. [112]

    J. Liu, T. Lichtenberg, K. A. Hoadley, L. M. Poisson, A. J. Lazar, A. D. Cherniack, A. J. Kovatich, C. C. Benz, D. A. Levine, A. V. Lee, et al., An integrated tcga pan-cancer clinical data resource to drive high-quality survival outcome analytics, Cell 173 (2) (2018) 400–416

    2018

  105. [113]

    C.-G. Yan, X. Chen, L. Li, F. X. Castellanos, T.-J. Bai, Q.-J. Bo, J. Cao, G.-M. Chen, N.-X. Chen, W. Chen, et al., Reduced default mode network functional connectivity in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (1...

    2019

  106. [114]

    R. S. Lee, F. Gimenez, A. Hoogi, K. K. Miyake, M. Gorovoy, D. L. Rubin, A curated mammography data set for use in computer-aided detection and diagnosis research, Scientific data 4 (1) (2017) 1–9

    2017

  107. [115]

    Ianevski, R

    A. Ianevski, R. M. Simonsen, V. Myhre, T. Tenson, V. Oksenych, M. Bjør ˚ as, D. E. Kainov, Drugvirus. info 2.0: an integrative data portal for broad-spectrum antivirals (bsa) and bsa-containing drug combinations (bccs), Nucleic acids research 50 (W1) (2022) W272–W275

    2022

  108. [116]

    Morris, N

    C. Morris, N. M. Kriege, F. Bause, K. Kersting, P. Mutzel, M. Neumann, Tudataset: A collection of benchmark datasets for learning with graphs, arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.08663 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Bellec, C

    P. Bellec, C. Chu, F. Chouinard-Decorte, Y. Benhajali, D. S. Margulies, R. C. Craddock, The neuro bureau adhd-200 preprocessed repository, Neuroimage 144 (2017) 275–286

    2017

  110. [118]

    W. Ma, L. Zhang, P. Zeng, C. Huang, J. Li, B. Geng, J. Yang, W. Kong, X. Zhou, Q. Cui, An analysis of human microbe–disease associations, Briefings in bioinformatics 18 (1) (2017) 85–97

    2017

  111. [119]

    Janssens, J

    Y. Janssens, J. Nielandt, A. Bronselaer, N. Debunne, F. Verbeke, E. Wynendaele, F. Van Immerseel, Y.-P. Vandewynckel, G. De Tr´ e, B. De Spiegeleer, Disbiome database: linking the microbiome to disease, BMC microbiology 18 (2018) 1–6

    2018

  112. [120]

    X. Zhao, D. Rangaprakash, T. S. Denney, J. S. Katz, M. N. Dretsch, G. Deshpande, Identifying neuropsychi- atric disorders using unsupervised clustering methods: data and code, Data in brief 22 (2019) 570–573. 43

    2019

  113. [121]

    Lanka, D

    P. Lanka, D. Rangaprakash, M. N. Dretsch, J. S. Katz, T. S. Denney, G. Deshpande, Supervised machine learning for diagnostic classification from large-scale neuroimaging datasets, Brain imaging and behavior 14 (2020) 2378–2416

    2020

  114. [122]

    H. Luo, J. Wang, M. Li, J. Luo, X. Peng, F.-X. Wu, Y. Pan, Drug repositioning based on comprehensive similarity measures and bi-random walk algorithm, Bioinformatics 32 (17) (2016) 2664–2671

    2016

  115. [123]

    Axelrod, R

    S. Axelrod, R. Gomez-Bombarelli, Geom, energy-annotated molecular conformations for property prediction and molecular generation, Scientific Data 9 (1) (2022) 185

    2022

  116. [124]

    D. S. Wishart, C. Knox, A. C. Guo, D. Cheng, S. Shrivastava, D. Tzur, B. Gautam, M. Hassanali, Drugbank: a knowledgebase for drugs, drug actions and drug targets, Nucleic acids research 36 (suppl 1) (2008) D901– D906

    2008

  117. [125]

    Hamosh, A

    A. Hamosh, A. F. Scott, J. S. Amberger, C. A. Bocchini, V. A. McKusick, Online mendelian inheritance in man (omim), a knowledgebase of human genes and genetic disorders, Nucleic acids research 33 (suppl 1) (2005) D514–D517

    2005

  118. [126]

    Huang, J

    Z. Huang, J. Shi, Y. Gao, C. Cui, S. Zhang, J. Li, Y. Zhou, Q. Cui, Hmdd v3. 0: a database for experimentally supported human microrna–disease associations, Nucleic acids research 47 (D1) (2019) D1013–D1017

    2019

  119. [127]

    J. Li, W. Li, A. Sisk, H. Ye, W. D. Wallace, W. Speier, C. W. Arnold, A multi-resolution model for histopathol- ogy image classification and localization with multiple instance learning, Computers in biology and medicine 131 (2021) 104253

    2021

  120. [128]

    N. Ing, Z. Ma, J. Li, H. Salemi, C. Arnold, B. S. Knudsen, A. Gertych, Semantic segmentation for prostate cancer grading by convolutional neural networks, in: Medical Imaging 2018: Digital Pathology, Vol. 10581, SPIE, 2018, pp. 343–355

    2018

  121. [129]

    A. P. Zijdenbos, B. M. Dawant, R. A. Margolin, A. C. Palmer, Morphometric analysis of white matter lesions in mr images: method and validation, IEEE transactions on medical imaging 13 (4) (1994) 716–724

    1994

  122. [130]

    G. M. Van de Ven, T. Tuytelaars, A. S. Tolias, Three types of incremental learning, Nature Machine Intelli- gence 4 (12) (2022) 1185–1197

    2022

  123. [131]

    Y. Zhu, S. Zhao, Y. Zhang, C. Zhang, J. Wu, A review of statistical-based fault detection and diagnosis with probabilistic models, Symmetry 16 (4) (2024) 455

    2024

  124. [132]

    Thomas, E

    T. Thomas, E. Rajabi, A systematic review of machine learning-based missing value imputation techniques, Data Technologies and Applications 55 (4) (2021) 558–585

    2021

  125. [133]

    T. Zhao, W. Jin, Y. Liu, Y. Wang, G. Liu, S. G¨ unnemann, N. Shah, M. Jiang, Graph data augmentation for graph machine learning: A survey, arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08871 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  126. [134]

    Ficek, W

    J. Ficek, W. Wang, H. Chen, G. Dagne, E. Daley, Differential privacy in health research: A scoping review, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 28 (10) (2021) 2269–2276

    2021

  127. [135]

    S. B. Atitallah, M. Driss, H. B. Ghezala, Fedmicro-ida: A federated learning and microservices-based frame- work for iot data analytics, Internet of Things 23 (2023) 100845. 44

    2023

  128. [136]

    Stiglic, P

    G. Stiglic, P. Kocbek, N. Fijacko, M. Zitnik, K. Verbert, L. Cilar, Interpretability of machine learning-based prediction models in healthcare, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 10 (5) (2020) e1379

    2020

  129. [137]

    Cascella, J

    M. Cascella, J. Montomoli, V. Bellini, E. Bignami, Evaluating the feasibility of chatgpt in healthcare: an analysis of multiple clinical and research scenarios, Journal of medical systems 47 (1) (2023) 33

    2023

  130. [138]

    Restrepo, C

    D. Restrepo, C. Wu, C. V´ asquez-Venegas, J. Matos, J. Gallifant, L. A. Celi, D. S. Bitterman, L. F. Nakayama, Analyzing diversity in healthcare llm research: A scientometric perspective, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13152 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  131. [139]

    Z. A. Nazi, W. Peng, Large language models in healthcare and medical domain: A review, in: Informatics, Vol. 11, MDPI, 2024, p. 57

    2024

  132. [140]

    S. Khan, A. Hoque, et al., Digital health data: a comprehensive review of privacy and security risks and some recommendations, Computer Science Journal of Moldova 71 (2) (2016) 273–292

    2016

  133. [141]

    Ruotsalainen, B

    P. Ruotsalainen, B. Blobel, Health information systems in the digital health ecosystem—problems and solu- tions for ethics, trust and privacy, International journal of environmental research and public health 17 (9) (2020) 3006

    2020

  134. [142]

    Budryt˙ e, General data protection regulation (gdpr) in european union: From proposal to implementation, Ph.D

    M. Budryt˙ e, General data protection regulation (gdpr) in european union: From proposal to implementation, Ph.D. thesis (2021)

    2021

  135. [143]

    P. F. Edemekong, P. Annamaraju, M. J. Haydel, Health insurance portability and accountability act (2018)

    2018

  136. [144]

    D. Jaar, P. E. Zeller, Canadian privacy law: The personal information protection and electronic documents act (pipeda), Int’l. In-House Counsel J. 2 (2008) 1135. 45

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.