The remarkable advances in biotechnology and health sciences have led to a significant production of data, such as high throughput genetic data and clinical information, generated from large Electronic Health Records (EHRs). To this end, application of machine learning and data mining methods in biosciences is presently, more than ever before, vital and indispensable in efforts to transform intelligently all available information into valuable knowledge. Diabetes mellitus (DM) is defined as a group of metabolic disorders exerting significant pressure on human health worldwide. Extensive research in all aspects of diabetes (diagnosis, etiopathophysiology, therapy, etc.) has led to the generation of huge amounts of data. The aim of the present study is to conduct a systematic review of the applications of machine learning, data mining techniques and tools in the field of diabetes research with respect to a) Prediction and Diagnosis, b) Diabetic Complications, c) Genetic Background and Environment, and e) Health Care and Management with the first category appearing to be the most popular. A wide range of machine learning algorithms were employed. In general, 85% of those used were characterized by supervised learning approaches and 15% by unsupervised ones, and more specifically, association rules. Support vector machines (SVM) arise as the most successful and widely used algorithm. Concerning the type of data, clinical datasets were mainly used. The title applications in the selected articles project the usefulness of extracting valuable knowledge leading to new hypotheses targeting deeper understanding and further investigation in DM.

Over the last few decades, there has been significant interest in the automatic analysis of respiratory sounds. However, currently there are no publicly available large databases with which new algorithms can be evaluated and compared. Further developments in the field are dependent on the creation of such databases. This paper describes a public respiratory sound database, which was compiled for an international competition, the first scientific challenge of the IFMBE's International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics. The database includes 920 recordings acquired from 126 participants and two sets of annotations. One set contains 6898 annotated respiratory cycles, some including crackles, wheezes, or a combination of both, and some with no adventitious respiratory sounds. In the other set, precise locations of 10 775 events of crackles and wheezes were annotated. The best system that participated in the challenge achieved an average score of 52.5% with the respiratory cycle annotations and an average score of 91.2% with the event annotations. The creation and public release of this database will be useful to the research community and could bring attention to the respiratory sound classification problem.

Respiratory diseases constitute one of the leading causes of death worldwide and directly affect the patient’s quality of life. Early diagnosis and patient monitoring, which conventionally include lung auscultation, are essential for the efficient management of respiratory diseases. Manual lung sound interpretation is a subjective and time-consuming process that requires high medical expertise. The capabilities that deep learning offers could be exploited in order that robust lung sound classification models can be designed. In this paper, we propose a novel hybrid neural model that implements the focal loss (FL) function to deal with training data imbalance. Features initially extracted from short-time Fourier transform (STFT) spectrograms via a convolutional neural network (CNN) are given as input to a long short-term memory (LSTM) network that memorizes the temporal dependencies between data and classifies four types of lung sounds, including normal, crackles, wheezes, and both crackles and wheezes. The model was trained and tested on the ICBHI 2017 Respiratory Sound Database and achieved state-of-the-art results using three different data splitting strategies—namely, sensitivity 47.37%, specificity 82.46%, score 64.92% and accuracy 73.69% for the official 60/40 split, sensitivity 52.78%, specificity 84.26%, score 68.52% and accuracy 76.39% using interpatient 10-fold cross validation, and sensitivity 60.29% and accuracy 74.57% using leave-one-out cross validation.