This paper is marked retracted in the scholarly record (OpenAlex). Interpret its findings with caution.
RETRACTION: A Lightweight Hybrid Dilated Ghost Model-Based Approach for the Prognosis of Breast Cancer
Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMRI in cancer diagnosis · AI in cancer detection · Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
RETRACTION: E. Ramirez-Asis, R. P. M. Bolivar, L. A. Gonzales, et al., “A Lightweight Hybrid Dilated Ghost Model-Based Approach for the Prognosis of Breast Cancer,” Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2022 (2022): 9325452, https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9325452.
The above article, published online on 25 August 2022 in Wiley Online Library (https://wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
This article has been retracted following an investigation undertaken by the publisher. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:
-
- Discrepancies in scope
-
- Discrepancies in the description of the research reported
-
- Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described
-
- Inappropriate citations
-
- Incoherent, meaningless, and/or irrelevant content included in the article
-
- Manipulated or compromised peer review
The presence of these indicators undermines our confidence in the integrity of the article's content and we cannot, therefore, vouch for its reliability. Please note that this notice is intended solely to alert readers that the content of this article is unreliable. We have not investigated whether authors were aware of or involved in the systematic manipulation of the publication process.
The authors disagree with the retraction.