Next Article in Journal
Ensemble Fusion Models Using Various Strategies and Machine Learning for EEG Classification
Previous Article in Journal
Building an Ethical and Trustworthy Biomedical AI Ecosystem for the Translational and Clinical Integration of Foundation Models
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Featured Papers in Computer Methods in Biomedicine

Mathematical Biology and Physiology, Department of Electronics and Telecommunications, Politecnico di Torino, 10129 Turin, Italy
Bioengineering 2024, 11(10), 985; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11100985
Submission received: 1 August 2024 / Accepted: 24 September 2024 / Published: 29 September 2024

1. Introduction

Recent years have seen progress in the intersection of computer science and biomedicine, progress that has led to significant advancements in healthcare diagnostics, treatment, and patient care. The application of machine learning (ML) and computational modeling in biomedicine is revolutionizing the way various clinical conditions are understood, diagnosed, and treated. This Special Issue presents a collection of seven articles that showcase the latest research and technological innovations in this interdisciplinary field. These papers highlight new approaches and methodologies that promise to enhance medical outcomes and improve the quality of patient care.

2. This Special Issue

This Special Issue consists of seven papers covering a few topics within a wide range of research fields of interest.
In order to predict low bone mineral density (BMD) in older women without the need for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), different ML approaches (i.e., logistic regression, decision trees, random forests, gradient boosting trees, and lightGBM) are used in [1]. They were assessed using the medical records of 2541 female patients. The model with the highest accuracy (83.4%) and area under the curve (AUC = 0.961) was the lightGBM. Three main factors that affected the prediction were age, BMI, and alanine transaminase levels. This methodology raises the possibility of non-invasive osteoporosis screening techniques and is consistent with related research endeavors centered around predictive modeling in the medical field [2,3].
Addressing the variability in microbiome data, a method is proposed in [4] to improve the generalizability of ML models for predicting different diseases, including colorectal cancer and Crohn’s disease, as well as immunotherapy response. By integrating datasets from multiple studies, the authors enhanced model performance, particularly with random forest models, through strategic data combination and feature selection. This methodology is critical in addressing the challenges of cross-study variability, as demonstrated in other works focusing on microbiome data integration and disease prediction [5,6].
In [7], a novel computational strategy is introduced to create patient-specific statistical reconstructions of healthy anatomical structures from computed tomography (CT) scans of damaged structures. Focusing on hip arthroplasty, the study demonstrates significant morphological differences between traditional prostheses and reconstructed healthy anatomy, emphasizing the potential for more accurate prosthetic designs. This approach aligns with current trends in personalized medicine and computational modeling for surgical planning and prosthetic development [8,9].
A deep learning algorithm for detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) from ECG data is introduced in [10]. By preprocessing ECG signals and employing a fine-tuned EfficientNet B0 model, the method achieved an impressive F-1 score of 88.2% and an accuracy value of 97.3%. This work underscores the growing role of artificial intelligence (AI) in cardiology, complementing other research efforts on automated arrhythmia detection [11,12,13].
Empirical mode decomposition (EMD) is used in [14] to classify Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients based on balance control data. By extracting temporal and spectral features from stabilometric signals, the authors achieved high classification accuracy (92%) through using a support vector machine (SVM) classifier. This innovative approach enhances the process for diagnosing PD, aligning with similar advances of signal processing applied to neurodegenerative diseases [15,16,17,18].
A comprehensive review of various methodologies for analyzing EEG data to understand brain connectivity is described in [19]. The authors categorize different metrics and emerging trends, such as high-order interactions and graph theory tools, providing a detailed account of the current state and future directions in EEG connectivity analysis. Functional connectivity, combined with topological indexes from graph theory, is finding many different applications, ranging from the investigation of neuronal networks in vitro with micro-electrode arrays [20] to the diagnosis of pathological conditions based on EEG data [21,22]. This work complements the existing literature on brain network analysis and connectivity [23,24].
Finally, this Special Issue also contains a review exploring the application of EEG-based brain–machine interfaces (BMI) to assist older adults, focusing on technical and user-related aspects [25]. The authors highlight the potential of BMIs to improve the quality of life of elderly individuals, particularly those with cognitive impairments. This aligns with broader research on assistive technologies and neurorehabilitation for aging populations [26]. Many recent results on the estimation of the human will from the cortical activity measured by EEG have been obtained [27,28,29] and can hopefully contribute in the future to support healthy aging.
In summary, the seven papers featured in this Special Issue showcase a variety of methodologies to advance computer methods in biomedicine. These methodologies range from ML techniques [1,4,10,14] to computational modeling and signal processing [7,19]. Two papers provide comprehensive reviews, summarizing existing methodologies and their applications in biomedicine [19,25].

3. Future Perspectives

This Special Issue, focusing on computer methods in biomedicine, describes significant advances in the application of computational techniques to medical scenarios. However, these studies also indicate several future directions that could be further explored:
  • An important objective could be the use of enhanced ML and AI approaches to develop more personalized models [30].
  • Enhancing the interpretability of AI models could ensure that they become trusted and fully understood by clinicians [31].
  • The integration of multimodal data from multiple sources, such as data derived from imaging, genomics, and proteomics, as well as clinical data, is another important direction that needs to be investigated further in order to provide a comprehensive view of patient health [32].
  • Real-Time data processing is fundamental to supporting timely clinical decisions [33].
  • Improving algorithms for EEG and ECG analysis is important for better capturing the complexity of these physiological signals [34].
  • Translation into clinical applications requires the resolution of technical issues related to the difference between research settings and clinical practice [35]. Moreover, regulatory and ethical challenges related to the use of AI and ML in healthcare should be carefully addressed [36].
  • Most of the above issues can only be resolved by promoting collaboration between computer scientists, biomedical researchers, and clinicians to foster innovation.
The future of computer methods in biomedicine is promising, and such methods have the potential to revolutionize healthcare through improved data analysis, tailored treatments, and better diagnostic tools. Advancements in ML, data integration, signal processing, clinical implementation, and interdisciplinary collaboration will be crucial in driving this field forward. By addressing current limitations and exploring new frontiers, researchers can further enhance the impact of computational methods on patient outcomes and overall healthcare quality.

4. Conclusions

This Special Issue illustrates the potential of computer methods in biomedicine. From enhancing diagnostic accuracy with ML to developing patient-specific treatments and understanding complex brain connectivity, these studies represent significant advancements in the field. With the continued integration of computational tools in biomedical research, the future holds great promise for more personalized and effective healthcare solutions.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank all authors who contributed to this work, the reviewers for their help in refining the papers for providing me the opportunity to serve as a Guest Editor for this Special Issue.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Inui, A.; Nishimoto, H.; Mifune, Y.; Yoshikawa, T.; Shinohara, I.; Furukawa, T.; Kato, T.; Tanaka, S.; Kusunose, M.; Kuroda, R. Screening for Osteoporosis from Blood Test Data in Elderly Women Using a Machine Learning Approach. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Lee, J.H.; Kim, J.W.; Lee, D.Y.; Lee, H.M.; Park, J.Y.; Choe, J.W.; Hong, S.H.; Kim, K.H. Predicting osteoporosis with machine learning models using various health data: Nationwide population-based study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018, 20, e11012. [Google Scholar]
  3. Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liang, S.; Cheng, G.; Qiu, L.; Liu, L.; Liu, L. Predicting bone mineral density from clinical factors and laboratory markers using machine learning. Bone 2020, 137, 115390. [Google Scholar]
  4. Song, K.; Zhou, Y. Leveraging Scheme for Cross-Study Microbiome Machine Learning Prediction and Feature Evaluations. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Knights, D.; Parfrey, L.W.; Zaneveld, J.; Lozupone, C.; Knight, R.; Gilbert, J.A. Supervised classification of microbiota mitigates mislabeling errors. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2011, 49, 3301–3307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sze, M.A.; Schloss, P.D. Looking for gold in all the wrong places: The fate of microbiome-wide association studies. Gut Microbes 2016, 7, 223–230. [Google Scholar]
  7. Wysocki, M.; Lewis, S.; Doyle, S. Developing Patient-Specific Statistical Reconstructions of Healthy Anatomical Structures to Improve Patient Outcomes. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Modenese, L.; Phillips, A.T.; Bull, A.M. An anatomically-based patient-specific finite element model of the ulna. J. Biomech. 2018, 44, 2536–2541. [Google Scholar]
  9. Viceconti, M.; Olsen, S.; Nolte, L.P.; Burton, K. Extracting clinically relevant data from finite element simulations. Clin. Biomech. 2005, 20, 451–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wei, T.; Lu, S.; Yan, Y. Automated Atrial Fibrillation Detection with ECG. Bioengineering 2022, 9, 523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rajpurkar, P.; Hannun, A.Y.; Haghpanahi, M.; Bourn, C.; Ng, A.Y. Cardiologist-level arrhythmia detection with convolutional neural networks. Nat. Med. 2019, 25, 65–69. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hannun, A.Y.; Rajpurkar, P.; Haghpanahi, M.; Tison, G.H.; Bourn, C.; Ng, A.Y. Cardiologist-level arrhythmia detection and classification in ambulatory electrocardiograms using a deep neural network. Nat. Med. 2019, 25, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yao, Q.; Wei, D.; Zhang, H.; Ding, X.; Shen, C. Time-incremental convolutional neural network for arrhythmia detection using electrocardiogram. Biocybern. Biomed. Eng. 2020, 40, 564–574. [Google Scholar]
  14. Safi, K.; Aly, W.; AlAkkoumi, M.; Kanj, H.; Ghedira, M.; Hutin, E. EMD-Based Method for Supervised Classification of Parkinson’s Disease Patients Using Balance Control Data. Bioengineering 2022, 9, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Huo, W.; Wang, Z.; Xu, Y.; Xie, Q.; Li, F.; Li, H. Supervised machine learning classification of Parkinson’s disease using magnetic resonance imaging. Front. Neurosci. 2019, 13, 1234. [Google Scholar]
  16. Piro, N.; Gharehbolagh, S.S.; Amiri, P.; Wu, Y.; Du, G. Early diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease using machine learning algorithms and partial least squares. Comput. Biol. Med. 2017, 90, 37–43. [Google Scholar]
  17. Farmer, C.; Zhao, J.; Duncan, D.; Fox, J.; Feindt, M.; Zhu, L. Machine learning for the classification of Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative diseases. Front. Neurosci. 2019, 13, 1358. [Google Scholar]
  18. Mesin, L.; Porcu, P.; Russu, D.; Farina, G.; Borzì, L.; Zhang, W.; Guo, Y.; Olmo, G. A Multi-Modal Analysis of the Freezing of Gait Phenomenon in Parkinson’s Disease. Sensors 2022, 22, 2613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chiarion, G.; Sparacino, L.; Antonacci, Y.; Faes, L.; Mesin, L. Connectivity Analysis in EEG Data: A Tutorial Review of the State of the Art and Emerging Trends. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tomagra, G.; Franchino, C.; Cesano, F.; Chiarion, G.; de lure, A.; Carbone, E.; Calabresi, P.; Mesin, L.; Picconi, B.; Marcantoni, A.; et al. Alpha-synuclein oligomers alter the spontaneous firing discharge of cultured midbrain neurons. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 2023, 17, 107855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chiarion, G.; Mesin, L. Functional connectivity of EEG in encephalitis during slow biphasic complexes. Electronics 2021, 10, 2978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Stam, C.J. Modern network science of neurological disorders. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2014, 15, 683–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Friston, K.J. Functional and effective connectivity: A review. Brain Connect. 2011, 1, 13–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Bullmore, E.; Sporns, O. Complex brain networks: Graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2009, 10, 186–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mesin, L.; Cipriani, G.; Amanzio, M. Electroencephalography-Based Brain–Machine Interfaces in Older Adults: A Literature Review. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lebedev, M.A.; Nicolelis, M.A. Brain-machine interfaces: Past, present and future. Trends Neurosci. 2006, 29, 536–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mesin, L.; Ghani, U.; Niazi, I.K. Non-Linear Adapted Spatio-Temporal Filter for Single-Trial Identification of Movement-Related Cortical Potential. Electronics 2023, 12, 1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ahmadi, H.; Mesin, L. Enhancing Motor Imagery Electroencephalography Classification with a Correlation-Optimized Weighted Stacking Ensemble Model. Electronics 2024, 13, 1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ahmadi, H.; Mesin, L. Enhancing MI EEG Signal Classification with a Novel Weighted and Stacked Adaptive Integrated Ensemble Model: A Multi-Dataset Approach. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 103626–103646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Collins, F.S.; Varmus, H. A new initiative on precision medicine. New Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 793–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gilpin, L.H.; Bau, D.; Yuan, B.Z.; Bajwa, A.; Specter, M.; Kagal, L. Explaining explanations: An overview of interpretability of machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA), Turin, Italy, 1–3 October 2018; pp. 80–89. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhang, Y.; An, Q.; Hu, W.; Yang, F.; Liu, Z. Multi-modal data fusion for biomedical diagnosis. Inf. Fusion 2020, 64, 173–183. [Google Scholar]
  33. Raghunathan, V.; Radha, R.; Mahajan, S. Real-time data processing architecture for continuous remote health monitoring systems. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 40462–40469. [Google Scholar]
  34. Krusienski, D.J.; Grosse-Wentrup, M.; Galán, F.; Coyle, D.; Miller, K.J.; Forney, E.; Anderson, C.W. Critical issues in state-of-the-art brain–computer interface signal processing. J. Neural Eng. 2011, 8, 025002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ioannidis, J.P.A. Translational research: What’s there to worry about? Am. J. Transl. Res. 2017, 9, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  36. Price, W.N.; Cohen, I.G. Privacy in the age of medical big data. Nat. Med. 2019, 25, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mesin, L. Featured Papers in Computer Methods in Biomedicine. Bioengineering 2024, 11, 985. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11100985

AMA Style

Mesin L. Featured Papers in Computer Methods in Biomedicine. Bioengineering. 2024; 11(10):985. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11100985

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mesin, Luca. 2024. "Featured Papers in Computer Methods in Biomedicine" Bioengineering 11, no. 10: 985. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11100985

APA Style

Mesin, L. (2024). Featured Papers in Computer Methods in Biomedicine. Bioengineering, 11(10), 985. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11100985

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop