Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Severity Classification of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Intensive Care Units: A Semi-Supervised Approach Using MIMIC-III Dataset

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · 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 a random forest model can separate mild-to-moderate from severe COPD in ICU patients with 92.51% accuracy and 0.98 ROC AUC, using only ten routinely collected blood-gas and vital-sign features from the MIMIC-III…

desk verdict The accuracy numbers are real but they measure how well the model recovers the authors' own threshold rule, not clinical severity. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18593 v1 pith:WXSLSZJU submitted 2025-04-24 cs.LG cs.AI

Akram Shojaei , Mehdi Delrobaei This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords COPDseverityclassificationintensivecareunitcritical-caredatabasebloodgasmeasurementsvitalsignsrandomforestsemi-supervisedlearning
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

The paper sets out to show that COPD severity in intensive care can be graded from a small set of bedside measurements instead of CT scans or spirometry, which are often impractical for critically ill patients. Because the critical-care database it uses has no severity labels, the authors construct labels from normal ranges of five blood-gas parameters (Algorithm 1), then use label propagation and label spreading to add labels to the unlabeled third of the data. On this labeled dataset, a random forest reaches 92.51% test accuracy and 0.9841 ROC AUC distinguishing severe from mild-to-moderate COPD. The sympathetic reading is that a simple, tabular classifier can reliably reproduce an expert-guided threshold rule from ten ICU parameters; whether that rule matches clinically meaningful severity is not settled by the paper.

What carries the argument

The machinery has two parts. First, Algorithm 1, a threshold rule consulted with two pulmonologists, labels a sample mild-to-moderate when pH is normal and at least one of PO2, PCO2, BE, or TCO2 is normal (or all five blood-gas values are normal), and severe when pH is abnormal and at least one of the other four is abnormal (or all five are abnormal); samples meeting neither condition are left unlabeled. This rule defines the ground truth the classifier learns. Second, semi-supervised label propagation and label spreading assign labels to the unlabeled samples by similarity in feature space, and a random forest (100 trees, max depth 10) is then trained on the fully labeled set. The load-bearing detail is that the target labels are generated by the rule itself, so the model's high accuracy measures how well it has internalized the rule from the ten features.

What would settle it

Take a held-out set of ICU COPD patients with independently recorded clinical severity (GOLD spirometry stage, exacerbation outcomes, or pulmonologist ratings) and run the trained model on their blood-gas and vital-sign values; if accuracy against those real severity labels falls to near chance, the reported 92.51% reflects the labeling rule rather than clinical severity. Alternatively, apply Algorithm 1 directly to the same test features and compare with the random forest's predictions: near-identical outputs would show the classifier is encoding the rule, not discovering a new severity signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that COPD severity in ICU patients can be classified into two clinically actionable classes by a random forest using only age, gender, five blood-gas values (PO2, PCO2, pH, BE, TCO2), and three vital signs (heart rate, respiratory rate, SpO2). After mean imputation, standardization, and a semi-supervised labeling step that assigns labels to initially unlabeled samples, the random forest achieves a test accuracy of 0.9251, precision 0.9569, recall 0.9061, F1 0.9308, and ROC AUC 0.9841 under 5-fold stratified cross-validation, outperforming KNN and SVM. The authors present this as evidence that a minimal, accessible feature set can support rapid COPD severity assessment in intensive care, where traditional severity grading tools are often unavailable.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a patient is truly severe when their pH, PO2, PCO2, BE, and TCO2 fall outside the normal ranges listed in Algorithm 1 and truly mild-to-moderate when they fall inside, since every reported accuracy number measures agreement with this constructed label and the paper never validates the label against clinical outcomes, GOLD stage, or independent expert assessment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A rapid ICU severity check becomes possible from blood-gas values and vital signs already charted at the bedside, without requiring spirometry or CT imaging.
  • The ten-feature set could be packaged into a clinical decision-support tool for triage and monitoring, if the rule is externally validated against clinical outcomes.
  • The semi-supervised labeling pipeline offers a template for other critical-care questions where expert-guided rules exist but labels are incomplete.
  • Random forest provides a strong baseline for future ICU COPD severity classifiers, beating KNN and SVM on this labeling.
  • The authors' own next steps—external validation on diverse populations and integration into decision-support systems—follow directly if the central claim is accepted.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 92.51% accuracy is measured against labels produced by Algorithm 1, so it largely certifies that the threshold rule is learnable from ten features; it does not certify that the rule matches mortality, exacerbation, or GOLD-stage severity.
  • A direct comparison between the random forest and the raw thresholds of Algorithm 1 applied to the same features would show how much machine learning adds beyond the rule itself.
  • A supervised-only baseline trained on the 8,625 initially labeled samples would quantify the actual contribution of the semi-supervised step, which the paper does not report.
  • Applying the same labeling rule to a newer critical-care dataset with outcome follow-up could turn the classifier from a rule-reproduction device into a testable predictor of clinical severity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a machine learning pipeline for classifying COPD severity in ICU patients using the MIMIC-III dataset. The authors extract ten features (blood gas parameters and vital signs), generate severity labels using a rule-based algorithm (Algorithm 1) that applies thresholds to five blood gas parameters, and then use semi-supervised label propagation/spreading to label the remaining unlabeled samples. Three classifiers (random forest, KNN, SVM) are evaluated with 5-fold stratified cross-validation. The random forest achieves the best reported performance: 92.51% accuracy and 0.98 ROC AUC in distinguishing mild-to-moderate from severe COPD. The paper claims this provides a practical clinical tool for COPD severity assessment in ICUs.

Significance. If the severity labels were valid, a model using only routinely measured ICU parameters could be clinically useful. However, the core evaluation is circular: the labels are constructed deterministically from five of the ten input features (pH, PO2, PCO2, BE, TCO2) via Algorithm 1. The classifiers therefore learn to approximate this known threshold rule; the reported accuracy and AUC measure agreement with the self-generated rule, not with any independent ground truth of COPD severity. The paper offers no external validation, no patient-level splitting, and no comparison to clinical outcomes, GOLD staging, or expert re-adjudication. On the positive side, the manuscript is clearly written, uses a widely used public dataset, and describes the preprocessing pipeline in sufficient detail to allow replication. Yet the central claim is unsupported, and the methodological flaw is not fixable within the current scope.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Algorithm 1, and Table 1] The severity labels are defined by Algorithm 1 as a deterministic function of thresholds on pH, PO2, PCO2, BE, and TCO2, while Table 1 lists exactly these five blood gas parameters among the ten classifier inputs. Consequently, the RF, SVM, and KNN models are trained to reproduce a labeling rule that is already fully determined by their own features. The reported test accuracy of 0.9251 and ROC AUC of 0.9841 (Table 2) thus quantify how well the models approximate Algorithm 1, not how well they identify clinically defined COPD severity. This circularity invalidates the abstract's claim that the model provides a 'practical, accurate, and efficient tool for rapid COPD severity evaluation.'
  2. [Section 3.3 and Section 5 (limitations)] There is no external validation or independent ground-truth check. The paper acknowledges in the Discussion that 'our model's performance on external datasets remains to be validated,' but this limitation is not merely an incremental gap; it is load-bearing because the labels themselves are constructed from the input features. The semi-supervised labeling step (Section 3.4) propagates the same constructed-label signal through feature-space similarity, so it does not provide independent evidence. Without comparison to spirometry, GOLD stage, exacerbation outcomes, mortality, or expert re-adjudication, the reported performance cannot be interpreted as clinical severity classification.
  3. [Section 3.5, Section 4] The cross-validation strategy is almost certainly not patient-level. The dataset contains 12,131 samples with multiple measurements per ICU stay (ICUSTAY-ID, HADM-ID), yet the text describes only 'a 5-fold stratified cross-validation' with no mention of grouping by patient or admission. If samples from the same patient appear in both training and test folds, the performance estimates are optimistically biased. The authors should either demonstrate patient-level splitting or explicitly justify why it is unnecessary; in the current form, the reported numbers are not trustworthy.
  4. [Section 3.3, Algorithm 1] The textual description of the labeling rule and the pseudocode disagree. The text states that for the mild-to-moderate group, 'pH is within the normal range, AND at least one of the following conditions is met: PO2, PCO2, BE, TCO2 is within the normal range.' However, Algorithm 1 lines 9 and 13 replace the PO2 condition with a clause that checks only PCO2, TCO2, and BE. This discrepancy makes the exact labeling rule ambiguous and the reported results non-reproducible from the manuscript as written. Additionally, the normal range assigned to PO2 (54–67.6 mmHg) is lower than the standard clinical arterial PO2 range (approximately 75–100 mmHg); this choice is not justified and may itself misclassify hypoxemic patients as 'mild-to-moderate'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, References] Reference [19] is mis-cited: the text attributes the ITFG/SAC-TL work to Yutao Dou et al., but the reference list entry [19] repeats the same Liu et al. reference as [18]. The reference list should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.5] The phrase 'randomstate' appears as a single word in the KNN and SVM descriptions; it should be 'random state'.
  3. [Algorithm 1] Line 1 contains a stray character 'z' at the end ('[7.35, 7.45]z').
  4. [Section 4, Table 2] The table reports mean and standard deviation, but it is not stated whether these are across the five cross-validation folds or repeated runs; this should be clarified.
  5. [General] The manuscript does not include a data availability or code availability statement. Given the use of MIMIC-III (which requires PhysioNet credentialing) and the described preprocessing, a reproducible code release would substantially strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Central accuracy claim is circular: severity labels are defined by thresholds on the same blood-gas features the classifier uses, so 92.51% measures recovery of Algorithm 1, not clinical severity.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3 (Algorithm 1, Labeling), Table 1, and Section 4 (Results)]
    "for each sample s do if s.pH ∈ A and s.PO2 ∈ B and s.PCO2 ∈ C and s.BE ∈ D and s.TCO2 ∈ E then Display "s is in the mild to moderate group" else if s.pH ∈/ A and (s.PCO2 ∈/ C or s.TCO2 ∈/ E or s.BE ∈/ D) then Display "s is in the severe group" end if end for"

    Algorithm 1 defines the severity label as a deterministic threshold rule on pH, PO2, PCO2, BE, and TCO2. Table 1 lists exactly these five blood-gas parameters among the ten features used as classifier inputs. Thus the labels are a known function of the input features. The random forest, SVM, and KNN models can only learn to approximate this threshold rule, so the reported 92.51% accuracy and 0.98 ROC AUC measure agreement with the labeling rule, not agreement with any independent clinical severity standard. The rule is never validated against GOLD stage, spirometry, clinical outcomes, or expert relabeling on a held-out set, so the central performance claim is circular by construction.

  2. other [Section 3.4, Semi-Supervised Learning]
    "Label propagation computes a similarity matrix among samples using the k-nearest neighbors (KNN) methodology to propagate the labels. On the other hand, label spreading follows the same process but includes a regularization mechanism ... they assume that similar samples are likely to have similar labels, facilitating accurate label inference based on the proximity of data points in the feature space."

    The initially labeled samples already carry Algorithm-1-derived labels, and the unlabeled samples are assigned labels by similarity in the same feature space that includes the five blood-gas parameters used by Algorithm 1. The semi-supervised step therefore propagates the same constructed-label signal to the 3,488 unlabeled samples instead of providing independent evidence about clinical severity. Including these propagated labels in the training and test data further ensures that classifier performance reflects self-consistency with the threshold rule and feature-space geometry, not external validity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: define severity labels via Algorithm 1 from thresholds on pH, PO2, PCO2, BE, and TCO2; feed those same five parameters (plus vital signs) into classifiers; and report accuracy and ROC AUC against those self-generated labels. Because the labels are a deterministic function of a subset of the input features, high classifier performance is expected and does not establish that the labels correspond to clinically meaningful COPD severity. The paper itself acknowledges that MIMIC-III has no predefined severity levels and that the labeling was created by the authors' procedural algorithm, yet no external benchmark is used. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain involved; the circularity is definitional. The comparative algorithm results and the semi-supervised workflow have some independent methodological content, but the central clinical-severity claim is forced by the labeling construction, warranting a score of 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central contribution rests on the hand-built thresholds in Algorithm 1, which turn raw blood gas values into binary severity labels. All model scores are relative to these labels. The semi-supervised step extends the same labels to unlabeled samples, so it does not add independent evidence. No new physical or clinical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Normal range thresholds for pH, PO2, PCO2, BE, TCO2 = pH 7.35-7.45; PO2 54-67.6; PCO2 35-45; BE -3 to 3; TCO2 23-29
    These thresholds define the severity labels in Algorithm 1; they are chosen by expert consultation and not derived from any outcome, so all reported performance depends on them.
  • Random forest hyperparameters = n_estimators=100, max_depth=10, random_state=42
    Initial values chosen for balance and reproducibility; tuning details are not fully given, but they affect reported metrics.
  • KNN number of neighbors k = 17
    Selected by cross-validated accuracy over odd k from 1 to 29, i.e., fitted to the data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption COPD severity in ICU can be operationally defined by the blood gas threshold rules in Algorithm 1.
    The study never validates the rule against clinical outcomes, GOLD stage, or expert labels on a held-out set; the central claim inherits this assumption.
  • domain assumption Samples in the dataset are independent observations despite repeated measurements per patient.
    The paper uses sample-level cross-validation and does not group by patient; if multiple measurements from one patient appear across folds, error estimates are optimistic.
  • domain assumption Mean imputation preserves the severity signal in missing values.
    SimpleImputer with column means is applied before classification; if missingness is informative, imputed values distort both features and labels.
  • domain assumption Standard semi-supervised learning assumptions, smoothness and cluster structure, hold for the unlabeled MIMIC samples.
    Label propagation and label spreading assume similar samples share labels; this is plausible but not verified, and the transductive nature can leak test information.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Severity Classification of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Intensive Care Units: A Semi-Supervised Approach Using MIMIC-III Dataset." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WXSLSZJU

@misc{pith2026250418593,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Severity Classification of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Intensive Care Units: A Semi-Supervised Approach Using MIMIC-III Dataset},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WXSLSZJU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18593}
}
read the original abstract

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) represents a significant global health burden, where precise severity assessment is particularly critical for effective clinical management in intensive care unit (ICU) settings. This study introduces an innovative machine learning framework for COPD severity classification utilizing the MIMIC-III critical care database, thereby expanding the applications of artificial intelligence in critical care medicine. Our research developed a robust classification model incorporating key ICU parameters such as blood gas measurements and vital signs, while implementing semi-supervised learning techniques to effectively utilize unlabeled data and enhance model performance. The random forest classifier emerged as particularly effective, demonstrating exceptional discriminative capability with 92.51% accuracy and 0.98 ROC AUC in differentiating between mild-to-moderate and severe COPD cases. This machine learning approach provides clinicians with a practical, accurate, and efficient tool for rapid COPD severity evaluation in ICU environments, with significant potential to improve both clinical decision-making processes and patient outcomes. Future research directions should prioritize external validation across diverse patient populations and integration with clinical decision support systems to optimize COPD management in critical care settings.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Vijayan, V. K. (2013). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Indian Jour - nal of Medical Research, 137(2), 251 –269. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 23563369/

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    C., Fahy, B., Meek, P., & Wang, A

    Lareau, S. C., Fahy, B., Meek, P., & Wang, A. (2019). Chronic obstructive pul - monary disease (COPD). American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 199(1), P1–P2. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.1991p1

    work page doi:10.1164/rccm.1991p1 2019

  3. [3]

    (2019, July 15)

    World Health Organization. (2019, July 15). Chronic respiratory dis- eases. Who.int; World Health Organization: WHO. https://www.who.int/ health-topics/chronic-respiratory-diseases{#}tab=tab.[Accessed: July. 28, 2024]

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    K., McGillivray, D., Bourbeau, J., Benedetti, A., Bartlett, S., & Ducharme, F

    Bhogal, S. K., McGillivray, D., Bourbeau, J., Benedetti, A., Bartlett, S., & Ducharme, F. M. (2012). Early Administration of Systemic Corticos- teroids Reduces Hospital Admission Rates for Children With Moderate and Severe Asthma Exacerbation. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 60(1), 84 -91.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.12.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.12.027 2012

  5. [5]

    Early predictors of admis- sion or prolonged emergency department treatment for children with acute 15 asthma,

    T. R. Shope, M. D. Cabana, and J. J. Zorc, “Early predictors of admis- sion or prolonged emergency department treatment for children with acute 15 asthma,” Ambulatory Child Health, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 11 –21, Mar. 2001, doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-0658.2001.00103.x

    work page arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    R., Fabbri, L

    Celli, B. R., Fabbri, L. M., Aaron, S. D., Agusti, A., Brook, R., Criner, G. J., Franssen, F. M. E., Humbert, M., Hurst, J. R., O’Donnell, D., Pantoni, L., Papi, A., Rodriguez -Roisin, R., Sethi, S., Torres, A., Vogelmeier, C. F., & Wedzicha, J. A. (2021). An Updated Definition and Severity Classification of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbat...

    work page doi:10.1164/rccm.202108-18 2021

  7. [7]

    P., Walters, J

    Johns, D. P., Walters, J. A. E., & Walters, E. H. (2014). Diagnosis and early detec- tion of COPD using spirometry. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 6(11), 1557 –1569. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2014.08.18

    arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    L., Steenbruggen, I., Miller, M

    Graham, B. L., Steenbruggen, I., Miller, M. R., Barjaktarevic, I. Z., Cooper, B. G., Hall, G. L., Hallstrand, T. S., Kaminsky, D. A., McCarthy, K., McCormack, M. C., Oropez, C. E., Rosenfeld, M., Stanojevic, S., Swanney, M. P., & Thompson, B. R. (2019). Standardization of Spirometry 2019 Update. An Official Ameri - can Thoracic Society and European Respir...

    work page doi:10.1164/rccm.2 2019

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. (2023). GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR PREVENTION, DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF COPD: 2023 Report. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease - GOLD. https://goldcopd.org/2023-gold-report-2/.[Accessed: July. 28, 2024]

    2023

  2. [10]

    Testing your lungs: spirometry. (2018). Breathe, 14(3), 257 –260. https://doi.org/10.1183/20734735.elf143

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Honig, E. (1990). An Overview of the Pulmonary System (H. K. Walker, W. D. Hall, & J. W. Hurst, Eds.). PubMed; Butterworths. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK356/

    1990

  4. [12]

    Byrne, D., & Laske, A. (2022). Arterial blood gases. Nursing Made Incredibly Easy!, 20(1), 11–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nme.0000801696.71591.cc

    2022

  5. [13]

    (2022, May 17)

    Cleveland Clinic. (2022, May 17). What Is COPD? Symptoms, Treat- ment & More — Cleveland Clinic: Health Library. Cleveland Clinic. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/8709-chronic-obstructive- pulmonary-disease-copd. [Accessed: July. 28, 2024]

    2022

  6. [14]

    I., Musa, A

    Ismail, A. I., Musa, A. N., Zim, M. A. M., Fadzil, M. A., Razali, N. M., Kassim, R. M. N. M., & Ismail , T. S. T. (2016). Resting heart rate and exacerbations in COPD patients. European Respiratory Journal, 48(suppl 60). https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2016.PA3666 16

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    (2016, September 4)

    Johnson, A., Pollard, T., & Mark, R. (2016, September 4). MIMIC -III Clinical Database. Physionet.org. https://physionet.org/content/mimiciii/1.4/

    2016

  8. [16]

    -W., Feng, M., Ghassemi, M., Moody, B., Szolovits, P., Celi, L., & Mark, R

    Johnson, A., Pollard, T., Shen, L., Lehman, L. -W., Feng, M., Ghassemi, M., Moody, B., Szolovits, P., Celi, L., & Mark, R. (2016). OPEN SUBJECT CATE - GORIES Background & Summary. MIMIC-III, a Freely Accessible Critical Care Database. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.35

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Asad, M., & Alamgir, Z. (2022). Improving mortality prediction in Acute Pancreatitis by machine learning and data augmenta- tion. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 150, 106077 –106077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.106077

    2022

  10. [19]

    Liu, M., Guo, C., & Guo, S. (2023). An explainable knowledge distillation method with XGBoost for ICU mortality prediction. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 152, 106466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.106466

    2023

  11. [20]

    R., & Elias, S

    Khope, S. R., & Elias, S. (2023). Strategies of Predictive Schemes and Clini- cal Diagnosis for Prognosis Using MIMIC-III: A Systematic Review. Healthcare, 11(5), 710. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11050710

    2023 doi

  12. [21]

    P., Aggelopoulou, A., Aikaterini Oikonomou, Biniskou, T., Vesna Beli, Eirini Antoniadou, & Konstantinos Kostikas

    Exarchos, K. P., Aggelopoulou, A., Aikaterini Oikonomou, Biniskou, T., Vesna Beli, Eirini Antoniadou, & Konstantinos Kostikas. (2022). Review of Artificial Intelligence Techniques in Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. 26(5), 2331–2338. https://doi.org/10.1109/jbhi.2021.3135838

    2022

  13. [22]

    Peng, L., Chen, Y., Lin, L., Hu, H., Li, H., Chen, Q., Ling, X., Wang, D., Han, X., & Iwamoto, Y. (2019). Classification and Quantification of Emphysema Using a Multi-Scale Residual Network. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 23(6), 2526–2536. https://doi.org/1...

    2019

  14. [23]

    Moghadas-Dastjerdi, H., Ahmadzadeh, M., Karami, E., Karami, M., & Samani, A. (2017). Lung CT image -based automatic technique for COPD GOLD stage assessment. Expert Systems with Applications, 85, 194 –203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.05.036

    2017 doi

  15. [24]

    Polat, O¨ ., S¸alk, I˙., & Do ˘gan, O¨ . T. (2022). Determination of COPD severity from chest CT images using deep transfer learning network. Multimedia Tools and Applications. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-12801-7

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    Sun, J., Liao, X., Yan, Y., Zhang, X., Sun, J., Tan, W., Liu, B., Wu, J., Guo, Q., Gao, S., Li, Z., Wang, K., & Li, Q. (2022). Detection and staging of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using a computed tomography–based weakly 17 supervised deep learning approach. European...

    2022 doi

  17. [26]

    S., Singh, B

    Haider, N. S., Singh, B. K., Periyasamy, R., & Behera, A. K. (2019). Respira - tory Sound Based Classification of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: a Risk Stratification Approach in Machine Learning Paradigm. Journal of Medical Systems, 43(8). https://doi.org/10.1007/s109...

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    P., Nakhmani, A., Fortis, S., Strand, M

    Bhatt, S. P., Nakhmani, A., Fortis, S., Strand, M. J., Silverman, E. K., Sciurba, F. C., & Bodduluri, S. (2023). FEV1/FVC Severity Stages for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 208(6), 676–684. https://doi.org/10....

    2023 doi

  19. [28]

    Ying, J., Dutta, J., Guo, N., Hu, C., Zhou, D., Sitek, A., & Li, Q. (2020). Classifi - cation of Exacerbation Frequency in the COPDGene Cohort Using Deep Learning With Deep Belief Networks. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 24(6), 1805–1813. https://doi.org/10...

    2020

  20. [29]

    Ying, J., Dutta, J., Guo, N., Xia, L., Sitek, A., & Li, Q. (2016). Gold classification of COPDGene cohort based on deep learning. https://doi.org/10.1109/icassp.2016.7472122

    2016

  21. [30]

    G., Bazaz, G., Kappel, G., & Gerber, A

    Swaminathan, S., Qirko, K., Smith, T., Corcoran, E., Wysham, N. G., Bazaz, G., Kappel, G., & Gerber, A. N. (2017). A machine learning approach to triaging patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. PloS One, 12(11), e0188532. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188532

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    L., & Hejlesen, O

    Kronborg, T., Hangaard, S., Cichosz, S. L., & Hejlesen, O. (2021). A two-layer probabilistic model to predict COPD exacerbations for patients in telehealth. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 128, 104108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.104108

    2021

  23. [32]

    Peng, J., Chen, C., Zhou, M., Xie, X., Zhou, Y., & Luo, C.-H. (2020). A Machine-learning Approach to Forecast Aggravation Risk in Patients with Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Clinical Indicators. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 3118. https://doi.or...

    2020 doi

  24. [33]

    Zheng, Y., Xu, Z., He, Y., & Liao, H. (2018). Severity assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic COPRAS method. Applied Soft Computing, 69, 60 –71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.04.035

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    Hands-on Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras, and Ten- sorFlow, 2nd Edition. (2019). Hands-on Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras, and TensorFlow, 2nd Edition. O’Reilly — Safari. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/hands-on-machine- learning/9781492032632/ 18

    2019

  26. [35]

    E., & Hoos, H

    Van Engelen, J. E., & Hoos, H. H. (2019). A Survey on semi-supervised Learning. Machine Learning, 109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-019-05855-6

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    (2022, June 14)

    Banitalebi-Dehkordi, A., Gujjar, P., & Zhang, Y. (2022, June 14). AuxMix: Semi-Supervised Learning with Unconstrained Unlabeled Data. ArXiv.org. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.06959

    2022 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    Zhu, X., & Goldberg, A. B. (2009). Introduction to Semi -Supervised Learning. In Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01548-9

    2009 doi

  29. [38]

    Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5 –32. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010933404324

    2001 doi

  30. [39]

    K., Kalampalikis, N

    Syriopoulos, P. K., Kalampalikis, N. G., Sotiris Kotsiantis, & Vrahatis, M. N. (2023). kNN Classification: a review. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-023-09882-x

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    Awad, M., & Khanna, R. (2015). Support Vector Machines for Classification. Efficient Learning Machines, 39–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4302-5990-9 3

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.