Facebook
TwitterDistributed data mining from privacy-sensitive multi-party data is likely to play an important role in the next generation of integrated vehicle health monitoring systems. For example, consider an airline manufacturer [tex]$\mathcal{C}$[/tex] manufacturing an aircraft model [tex]$A$[/tex] and selling it to five different airline operating companies [tex]$\mathcal{V}_1 \dots \mathcal{V}_5$[/tex]. These aircrafts, during their operation, generate huge amount of data. Mining this data can reveal useful information regarding the health and operability of the aircraft which can be useful for disaster management and prediction of efficient operating regimes. Now if the manufacturer [tex]$\mathcal{C}$[/tex] wants to analyze the performance data collected from different aircrafts of model-type [tex]$A$[/tex] belonging to different airlines then central collection of data for subsequent analysis may not be an option. It should be noted that the result of this analysis may be statistically more significant if the data for aircraft model [tex]$A$[/tex] across all companies were available to [tex]$\mathcal{C}$[/tex]. The potential problems arising out of such a data mining scenario are:
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Biological data analysis is the key to new discoveries in disease biology and drug discovery. The rapid proliferation of high-throughput ‘omics’ data has necessitated a need for tools and platforms that allow the researchers to combine and analyse different types of biological data and obtain biologically relevant knowledge. We had previously developed TargetMine, an integrative data analysis platform for target prioritisation and broad-based biological knowledge discovery. Here, we describe the newly modelled biological data types and the enhanced visual and analytical features of TargetMine. These enhancements have included: an enhanced coverage of gene–gene relations, small molecule metabolite to pathway mappings, an improved literature survey feature, and in silico prediction of gene functional associations such as protein–protein interactions and global gene co-expression. We have also described two usage examples on trans-omics data analysis and extraction of gene-disease associations using MeSH term descriptors. These examples have demonstrated how the newer enhancements in TargetMine have contributed to a more expansive coverage of the biological data space and can help interpret genotype–phenotype relations. TargetMine with its auxiliary toolkit is available at https://targetmine.mizuguchilab.org. The TargetMine source code is available at https://github.com/chenyian-nibio/targetmine-gradle.
Facebook
TwitterDistributed data mining from privacy-sensitive multi-party data is likely to play an important role in the next generation of integrated vehicle health monitoring systems. For example, consider an airline manufacturer [tex]$\mathcal{C}$[/tex] manufacturing an aircraft model [tex]$A$[/tex] and selling it to five different airline operating companies [tex]$\mathcal{V}_1 \dots \mathcal{V}_5$[/tex]. These aircrafts, during their operation, generate huge amount of data. Mining this data can reveal useful information regarding the health and operability of the aircraft which can be useful for disaster management and prediction of efficient operating regimes. Now if the manufacturer [tex]$\mathcal{C}$[/tex] wants to analyze the performance data collected from different aircrafts of model-type [tex]$A$[/tex] belonging to different airlines then central collection of data for subsequent analysis may not be an option. It should be noted that the result of this analysis may be statistically more significant if the data for aircraft model [tex]$A$[/tex] across all companies were available to [tex]$\mathcal{C}$[/tex]. The potential problems arising out of such a data mining scenario are:
Facebook
Twitterhttps://exactitudeconsultancy.com/privacy-policyhttps://exactitudeconsultancy.com/privacy-policy
The U.S. Data Analysis Storage Management market is projected to be valued at $10 billion in 2024, driven by factors such as increasing consumer awareness and the rising prevalence of industry-specific trends. The market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 12%, reaching approximately $31 billion by 2034.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.wiseguyreports.com/pages/privacy-policyhttps://www.wiseguyreports.com/pages/privacy-policy
| BASE YEAR | 2024 |
| HISTORICAL DATA | 2019 - 2023 |
| REGIONS COVERED | North America, Europe, APAC, South America, MEA |
| REPORT COVERAGE | Revenue Forecast, Competitive Landscape, Growth Factors, and Trends |
| MARKET SIZE 2024 | 153.8(USD Billion) |
| MARKET SIZE 2025 | 192.4(USD Billion) |
| MARKET SIZE 2035 | 1800.0(USD Billion) |
| SEGMENTS COVERED | Data Type, Deployment Model, Application, End Use Industry, Regional |
| COUNTRIES COVERED | US, Canada, Germany, UK, France, Russia, Italy, Spain, Rest of Europe, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Rest of APAC, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Rest of South America, GCC, South Africa, Rest of MEA |
| KEY MARKET DYNAMICS | Data privacy regulations, Cloud computing adoption, Big data analytics growth, Artificial intelligence integration, Internet of Things expansion |
| MARKET FORECAST UNITS | USD Billion |
| KEY COMPANIES PROFILED | Accenture, IBM, Snowflake, Palantir Technologies, DataRobot, Oracle, Salesforce, Tencent, Alibaba, SAP, Microsoft, Intel, Cloudera, Amazon, Google, Cisco |
| MARKET FORECAST PERIOD | 2025 - 2035 |
| KEY MARKET OPPORTUNITIES | Data-driven decision making, Cloud data storage expansion, AI and machine learning integration, Data privacy solutions demand, Real-time analytics and insights |
| COMPOUND ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (CAGR) | 25.1% (2025 - 2035) |
Facebook
Twitterhttps://bisresearch.com/privacy-policy-cookie-restriction-modehttps://bisresearch.com/privacy-policy-cookie-restriction-mode
The Data Mining Tools Market is expected to be valued at $1.24 billion in 2024, with an anticipated expansion at a CAGR of 11.63% to reach $3.73 billion by 2034.
Facebook
TwitterMIT Licensehttps://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
License information was derived automatically
This dataset is essentially the metadata from 164 datasets. Each of its lines concerns a dataset from which 22 features have been extracted, which are used to classify each dataset into one of the categories 0-Unmanaged, 2-INV, 3-SI, 4-NOA (DatasetType).
This Dataset consists of 164 Rows. Each row is the metadata of an other dataset. The target column is datasetType which has 4 values indicating the dataset type. These are:
2 - Invoice detail (INV): This dataset type is a special report (usually called Detailed Sales Statement) produced by a Company Accounting or an Enterprise Resource Planning software (ERP). Using a INV-type dataset directly for ARM is extremely convenient for users as it relieves them from the tedious work of transforming data into another more suitable form. INV-type data input typically includes a header but, only two of its attributes are essential for data mining. The first attribute serves as the grouping identifier creating a unique transaction (e.g., Invoice ID, Order Number), while the second attribute contains the items utilized for data mining (e.g., Product Code, Product Name, Product ID).
3 - Sparse Item (SI): This type is widespread in Association Rules Mining (ARM). It involves a header and a fixed number of columns. Each item corresponds to a column. Each row represents a transaction. The typical cell stores a value, usually one character in length, that depicts the presence or absence of the item in the corresponding transaction. The absence character must be identified or declared before the Association Rules Mining process takes place.
4 - Nominal Attributes (NOA): This type is commonly used in Machine Learning and Data Mining tasks. It involves a fixed number of columns. Each column registers nominal/categorical values. The presence of a header row is optional. However, in cases where no header is provided, there is a risk of extracting incorrect rules if similar values exist in different attributes of the dataset. The potential values for each attribute can vary.
0 - Unmanaged for ARM: On the other hand, not all datasets are suitable for extracting useful association rules or frequent item sets. For instance, datasets characterized predominantly by numerical features with arbitrary values, or datasets that involve fragmented or mixed types of data types. For such types of datasets, ARM processing becomes possible only by introducing a data discretization stage which in turn introduces information loss. Such types of datasets are not considered in the present treatise and they are termed (0) Unmanaged in the sequel.
The dataset type is crucial to determine for ARM, and the current dataset is used to classify the dataset's type using a Supervised Machine Learning Model.
There is and another dataset type named 1 - Market Basket List (MBL) where each dataset row is a transaction. A transaction involves a variable number of items. However, due to this characteristic, these datasets can be easily categorized using procedural programming and DoD does not include instances of them. For more details about Dataset Types please refer to article "WebApriori: a web application for association rules mining". https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-49663-0_44
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Data Analysis is the process that supports decision-making and informs arguments in empirical studies. Descriptive statistics, Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA), and Confirmatory Data Analysis (CDA) are the approaches that compose Data Analysis (Xia & Gong; 2014). An Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) comprises a set of statistical and data mining procedures to describe data. We ran EDA to provide statistical facts and inform conclusions. The mined facts allow attaining arguments that would influence the Systematic Literature Review of DL4SE.
The Systematic Literature Review of DL4SE requires formal statistical modeling to refine the answers for the proposed research questions and formulate new hypotheses to be addressed in the future. Hence, we introduce DL4SE-DA, a set of statistical processes and data mining pipelines that uncover hidden relationships among Deep Learning reported literature in Software Engineering. Such hidden relationships are collected and analyzed to illustrate the state-of-the-art of DL techniques employed in the software engineering context.
Our DL4SE-DA is a simplified version of the classical Knowledge Discovery in Databases, or KDD (Fayyad, et al; 1996). The KDD process extracts knowledge from a DL4SE structured database. This structured database was the product of multiple iterations of data gathering and collection from the inspected literature. The KDD involves five stages:
Selection. This stage was led by the taxonomy process explained in section xx of the paper. After collecting all the papers and creating the taxonomies, we organize the data into 35 features or attributes that you find in the repository. In fact, we manually engineered features from the DL4SE papers. Some of the features are venue, year published, type of paper, metrics, data-scale, type of tuning, learning algorithm, SE data, and so on.
Preprocessing. The preprocessing applied was transforming the features into the correct type (nominal), removing outliers (papers that do not belong to the DL4SE), and re-inspecting the papers to extract missing information produced by the normalization process. For instance, we normalize the feature “metrics” into “MRR”, “ROC or AUC”, “BLEU Score”, “Accuracy”, “Precision”, “Recall”, “F1 Measure”, and “Other Metrics”. “Other Metrics” refers to unconventional metrics found during the extraction. Similarly, the same normalization was applied to other features like “SE Data” and “Reproducibility Types”. This separation into more detailed classes contributes to a better understanding and classification of the paper by the data mining tasks or methods.
Transformation. In this stage, we omitted to use any data transformation method except for the clustering analysis. We performed a Principal Component Analysis to reduce 35 features into 2 components for visualization purposes. Furthermore, PCA also allowed us to identify the number of clusters that exhibit the maximum reduction in variance. In other words, it helped us to identify the number of clusters to be used when tuning the explainable models.
Data Mining. In this stage, we used three distinct data mining tasks: Correlation Analysis, Association Rule Learning, and Clustering. We decided that the goal of the KDD process should be oriented to uncover hidden relationships on the extracted features (Correlations and Association Rules) and to categorize the DL4SE papers for a better segmentation of the state-of-the-art (Clustering). A clear explanation is provided in the subsection “Data Mining Tasks for the SLR od DL4SE”. 5.Interpretation/Evaluation. We used the Knowledge Discover to automatically find patterns in our papers that resemble “actionable knowledge”. This actionable knowledge was generated by conducting a reasoning process on the data mining outcomes. This reasoning process produces an argument support analysis (see this link).
We used RapidMiner as our software tool to conduct the data analysis. The procedures and pipelines were published in our repository.
Overview of the most meaningful Association Rules. Rectangles are both Premises and Conclusions. An arrow connecting a Premise with a Conclusion implies that given some premise, the conclusion is associated. E.g., Given that an author used Supervised Learning, we can conclude that their approach is irreproducible with a certain Support and Confidence.
Support = Number of occurrences this statement is true divided by the amount of statements Confidence = The support of the statement divided by the number of occurrences of the premise
Facebook
TwitterTo make this a seamless process, I cleaned the data and delete many variables that I thought were not important to our dataset. I then uploaded all of those files to Kaggle for each of you to download. The rideshare_data has both lyft and uber but it is still a cleaned version from the dataset we downloaded from Kaggle.
You can easily subset the data into the car types that you will be modeling by first loading the csv into R, here is the code for how you do this:
df<-read.csv('uber.csv')
df_black<-subset(uber_df, uber_df$name == 'Black')
write.csv(df_black, "nameofthefileyouwanttosaveas.csv")
getwd()
Your data will be in front of the world's largest data science community. What questions do you want to see answered?
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.wiseguyreports.com/pages/privacy-policyhttps://www.wiseguyreports.com/pages/privacy-policy
| BASE YEAR | 2024 |
| HISTORICAL DATA | 2019 - 2023 |
| REGIONS COVERED | North America, Europe, APAC, South America, MEA |
| REPORT COVERAGE | Revenue Forecast, Competitive Landscape, Growth Factors, and Trends |
| MARKET SIZE 2024 | 7.87(USD Billion) |
| MARKET SIZE 2025 | 8.37(USD Billion) |
| MARKET SIZE 2035 | 15.4(USD Billion) |
| SEGMENTS COVERED | Application, Deployment Model, Technique, End Use, Regional |
| COUNTRIES COVERED | US, Canada, Germany, UK, France, Russia, Italy, Spain, Rest of Europe, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Rest of APAC, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Rest of South America, GCC, South Africa, Rest of MEA |
| KEY MARKET DYNAMICS | Growing demand for actionable insights, Increasing adoption of AI technologies, Rising need for predictive analytics, Expanding data sources and volume, Regulatory compliance and data privacy concerns |
| MARKET FORECAST UNITS | USD Billion |
| KEY COMPANIES PROFILED | Informatica, Tableau, Cloudera, Microsoft, Google, Alteryx, Oracle, SAP, SAS, DataRobot, Dell Technologies, Qlik, Teradata, TIBCO Software, Snowflake, IBM |
| MARKET FORECAST PERIOD | 2025 - 2035 |
| KEY MARKET OPPORTUNITIES | Increased demand for predictive analytics, Growth in big data technologies, Rising need for data-driven decision-making, Adoption of AI and machine learning, Expansion in healthcare data analysis |
| COMPOUND ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (CAGR) | 6.3% (2025 - 2035) |
Facebook
Twitterhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
Activity Title: "Data Detective: The Warehouse Mystery!"
(This file contains eight different datasets to practice data mining and data warehousing techniques. And this activity is curated for Data Science beginners.)
Description: Divide students into groups and assign each a "mini-warehouse" (a pre-created, structured dataset with hidden patterns or trends).
Each group acts as data detectives tasked with discovering: • Frequent patterns (association rules) • Anomalies (outliers) • Summaries (clustering or classification)
Outcome: Present findings as visual dashboards or data storytelling reports.
Facebook
TwitterOntoDM-core defines the most essential data mining entities in a three-layered ontological structure comprising of a specification, an implementation and an application layer. It provides a representational framework for the description of mining structured data, and in addition provides taxonomies of datasets, data mining tasks, generalizations, data mining algorithms and constraints, based on the type of data. OntoDM-core is designed to support a wide range of applications/use cases, such as semantic annotation of data mining algorithms, datasets and results; annotation of QSAR studies in the context of drug discovery investigations; and disambiguation of terms in text mining. (from abstract)
Facebook
Twitterhttps://datacatalog.worldbank.org/public-licenses?fragment=cchttps://datacatalog.worldbank.org/public-licenses?fragment=cc
This dataset contains metadata (title, abstract, date of publication, field, etc) for around 1 million academic articles. Each record contains additional information on the country of study and whether the article makes use of data. Machine learning tools were used to classify the country of study and data use.
Our data source of academic articles is the Semantic Scholar Open Research Corpus (S2ORC) (Lo et al. 2020). The corpus contains more than 130 million English language academic papers across multiple disciplines. The papers included in the Semantic Scholar corpus are gathered directly from publishers, from open archives such as arXiv or PubMed, and crawled from the internet.
We placed some restrictions on the articles to make them usable and relevant for our purposes. First, only articles with an abstract and parsed PDF or latex file are included in the analysis. The full text of the abstract is necessary to classify the country of study and whether the article uses data. The parsed PDF and latex file are important for extracting important information like the date of publication and field of study. This restriction eliminated a large number of articles in the original corpus. Around 30 million articles remain after keeping only articles with a parsable (i.e., suitable for digital processing) PDF, and around 26% of those 30 million are eliminated when removing articles without an abstract. Second, only articles from the year 2000 to 2020 were considered. This restriction eliminated an additional 9% of the remaining articles. Finally, articles from the following fields of study were excluded, as we aim to focus on fields that are likely to use data produced by countries’ national statistical system: Biology, Chemistry, Engineering, Physics, Materials Science, Environmental Science, Geology, History, Philosophy, Math, Computer Science, and Art. Fields that are included are: Economics, Political Science, Business, Sociology, Medicine, and Psychology. This third restriction eliminated around 34% of the remaining articles. From an initial corpus of 136 million articles, this resulted in a final corpus of around 10 million articles.
Due to the intensive computer resources required, a set of 1,037,748 articles were randomly selected from the 10 million articles in our restricted corpus as a convenience sample.
The empirical approach employed in this project utilizes text mining with Natural Language Processing (NLP). The goal of NLP is to extract structured information from raw, unstructured text. In this project, NLP is used to extract the country of study and whether the paper makes use of data. We will discuss each of these in turn.
To determine the country or countries of study in each academic article, two approaches are employed based on information found in the title, abstract, or topic fields. The first approach uses regular expression searches based on the presence of ISO3166 country names. A defined set of country names is compiled, and the presence of these names is checked in the relevant fields. This approach is transparent, widely used in social science research, and easily extended to other languages. However, there is a potential for exclusion errors if a country’s name is spelled non-standardly.
The second approach is based on Named Entity Recognition (NER), which uses machine learning to identify objects from text, utilizing the spaCy Python library. The Named Entity Recognition algorithm splits text into named entities, and NER is used in this project to identify countries of study in the academic articles. SpaCy supports multiple languages and has been trained on multiple spellings of countries, overcoming some of the limitations of the regular expression approach. If a country is identified by either the regular expression search or NER, it is linked to the article. Note that one article can be linked to more than one country.
The second task is to classify whether the paper uses data. A supervised machine learning approach is employed, where 3500 publications were first randomly selected and manually labeled by human raters using the Mechanical Turk service (Paszke et al. 2019).[1] To make sure the human raters had a similar and appropriate definition of data in mind, they were given the following instructions before seeing their first paper:
Each of these documents is an academic article. The goal of this study is to measure whether a specific academic article is using data and from which country the data came.
There are two classification tasks in this exercise:
1. identifying whether an academic article is using data from any country
2. Identifying from which country that data came.
For task 1, we are looking specifically at the use of data. Data is any information that has been collected, observed, generated or created to produce research findings. As an example, a study that reports findings or analysis using a survey data, uses data. Some clues to indicate that a study does use data includes whether a survey or census is described, a statistical model estimated, or a table or means or summary statistics is reported.
After an article is classified as using data, please note the type of data used. The options are population or business census, survey data, administrative data, geospatial data, private sector data, and other data. If no data is used, then mark "Not applicable". In cases where multiple data types are used, please click multiple options.[2]
For task 2, we are looking at the country or countries that are studied in the article. In some cases, no country may be applicable. For instance, if the research is theoretical and has no specific country application. In some cases, the research article may involve multiple countries. In these cases, select all countries that are discussed in the paper.
We expect between 10 and 35 percent of all articles to use data.
The median amount of time that a worker spent on an article, measured as the time between when the article was accepted to be classified by the worker and when the classification was submitted was 25.4 minutes. If human raters were exclusively used rather than machine learning tools, then the corpus of 1,037,748 articles examined in this study would take around 50 years of human work time to review at a cost of $3,113,244, which assumes a cost of $3 per article as was paid to MTurk workers.
A model is next trained on the 3,500 labelled articles. We use a distilled version of the BERT (bidirectional Encoder Representations for transformers) model to encode raw text into a numeric format suitable for predictions (Devlin et al. (2018)). BERT is pre-trained on a large corpus comprising the Toronto Book Corpus and Wikipedia. The distilled version (DistilBERT) is a compressed model that is 60% the size of BERT and retains 97% of the language understanding capabilities and is 60% faster (Sanh, Debut, Chaumond, Wolf 2019). We use PyTorch to produce a model to classify articles based on the labeled data. Of the 3,500 articles that were hand coded by the MTurk workers, 900 are fed to the machine learning model. 900 articles were selected because of computational limitations in training the NLP model. A classification of “uses data” was assigned if the model predicted an article used data with at least 90% confidence.
The performance of the models classifying articles to countries and as using data or not can be compared to the classification by the human raters. We consider the human raters as giving us the ground truth. This may underestimate the model performance if the workers at times got the allocation wrong in a way that would not apply to the model. For instance, a human rater could mistake the Republic of Korea for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. If both humans and the model perform the same kind of errors, then the performance reported here will be overestimated.
The model was able to predict whether an article made use of data with 87% accuracy evaluated on the set of articles held out of the model training. The correlation between the number of articles written about each country using data estimated under the two approaches is given in the figure below. The number of articles represents an aggregate total of
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.wiseguyreports.com/pages/privacy-policyhttps://www.wiseguyreports.com/pages/privacy-policy
| BASE YEAR | 2024 |
| HISTORICAL DATA | 2019 - 2023 |
| REGIONS COVERED | North America, Europe, APAC, South America, MEA |
| REPORT COVERAGE | Revenue Forecast, Competitive Landscape, Growth Factors, and Trends |
| MARKET SIZE 2024 | 9.03(USD Billion) |
| MARKET SIZE 2025 | 9.73(USD Billion) |
| MARKET SIZE 2035 | 20.5(USD Billion) |
| SEGMENTS COVERED | Service Model, Deployment Type, Industry, Data Type, Regional |
| COUNTRIES COVERED | US, Canada, Germany, UK, France, Russia, Italy, Spain, Rest of Europe, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Rest of APAC, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Rest of South America, GCC, South Africa, Rest of MEA |
| KEY MARKET DYNAMICS | Growing demand for data insights, Increasing adoption of cloud solutions, Rising importance of data security, Need for scalable analytics tools, Shortage of data skilled professionals |
| MARKET FORECAST UNITS | USD Billion |
| KEY COMPANIES PROFILED | Tableau, Qlik, Domo, TIBCO, SAP, MicroStrategy, Google, Zoho, Microsoft, Salesforce, Infor, SAS, Looker, IBM, Sisense, Oracle |
| MARKET FORECAST PERIOD | 2025 - 2035 |
| KEY MARKET OPPORTUNITIES | Cloud-based analytics solutions, Real-time data insights, AI-driven data management, Scalable DaaS platforms, Industry-specific analytics tools |
| COMPOUND ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (CAGR) | 7.8% (2025 - 2035) |
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.wiseguyreports.com/pages/privacy-policyhttps://www.wiseguyreports.com/pages/privacy-policy
| BASE YEAR | 2024 |
| HISTORICAL DATA | 2019 - 2023 |
| REGIONS COVERED | North America, Europe, APAC, South America, MEA |
| REPORT COVERAGE | Revenue Forecast, Competitive Landscape, Growth Factors, and Trends |
| MARKET SIZE 2024 | 39.4(USD Billion) |
| MARKET SIZE 2025 | 43.3(USD Billion) |
| MARKET SIZE 2035 | 110.5(USD Billion) |
| SEGMENTS COVERED | Deployment Model, Tool Type, End User, Application, Regional |
| COUNTRIES COVERED | US, Canada, Germany, UK, France, Russia, Italy, Spain, Rest of Europe, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Rest of APAC, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Rest of South America, GCC, South Africa, Rest of MEA |
| KEY MARKET DYNAMICS | Increasing data volume, Demand for real-time analytics, Growing cloud adoption, Rising need for data security, Advancements in AI technologies |
| MARKET FORECAST UNITS | USD Billion |
| KEY COMPANIES PROFILED | Informatica, IBM, Amazon Web Services, Snowflake, DataRobot, Domo, Oracle, SAP, Microsoft, MongoDB, Cloudera, Google, SAS Institute, Teradata, Qlik, Hortonworks |
| MARKET FORECAST PERIOD | 2025 - 2035 |
| KEY MARKET OPPORTUNITIES | Increased demand for analytics solutions, Growth in cloud-based big data tools, Rise of AI and machine learning integration, Expansion in real-time data processing, Enhanced data privacy and security needs |
| COMPOUND ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (CAGR) | 9.8% (2025 - 2035) |
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.wiseguyreports.com/pages/privacy-policyhttps://www.wiseguyreports.com/pages/privacy-policy
| BASE YEAR | 2024 |
| HISTORICAL DATA | 2019 - 2023 |
| REGIONS COVERED | North America, Europe, APAC, South America, MEA |
| REPORT COVERAGE | Revenue Forecast, Competitive Landscape, Growth Factors, and Trends |
| MARKET SIZE 2024 | 18.1(USD Billion) |
| MARKET SIZE 2025 | 19.7(USD Billion) |
| MARKET SIZE 2035 | 45.0(USD Billion) |
| SEGMENTS COVERED | Application, Deployment Model, End Use Industry, Data Type, Regional |
| COUNTRIES COVERED | US, Canada, Germany, UK, France, Russia, Italy, Spain, Rest of Europe, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Rest of APAC, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Rest of South America, GCC, South Africa, Rest of MEA |
| KEY MARKET DYNAMICS | Data explosion driving demand, Cloud adoption enhancing scalability, AI integration for insights, Competitive edge through analytics, Regulatory compliance influencing solutions |
| MARKET FORECAST UNITS | USD Billion |
| KEY COMPANIES PROFILED | IBM, Domo, Snowflake, Palantir Technologies, AWS, Oracle, MicroStrategy, Tableau, SAP, Microsoft, Google Cloud, Alteryx, SAS Institute, Teradata, Qlik |
| MARKET FORECAST PERIOD | 2025 - 2035 |
| KEY MARKET OPPORTUNITIES | Cloud-based analytics solutions, Integration with IoT devices, Enhanced data security measures, Demand for real-time analytics, AI and machine learning applications |
| COMPOUND ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (CAGR) | 8.6% (2025 - 2035) |
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
ABSTRACT The hatchery is one of the most important segments of the poultry chain, and generates an abundance of data, which, when analyzed, allow for identifying critical points of the process . The aim of this study was to evaluate the applicability of the data mining technique to databases of egg incubation of broiler breeders and laying hen breeders. The study uses a database recording egg incubation from broiler breeders housed in pens with shavings used for litters in natural mating, as well as laying hen breeders housed in cages using an artificial insemination mating system. The data mining technique (DM) was applied to analyses in a classification task, using the type of breeder and house system for delineating classes. The database was analyzed in three different ways: original database, attribute selection, and expert analysis. Models were selected on the basis of model precision and class accuracy. The data mining technique allowed for the classification of hatchery fertile eggs from different genetic groups, as well as hatching rates and the percentage of fertile eggs (the attributes with the greatest classification power). Broiler breeders showed higher fertility (> 95 %), but higher embryonic mortality between the third and seventh day post-hatching (> 0.5 %) when compared to laying hen breeders’ eggs. In conclusion, applying data mining to the hatchery process, selection of attributes and strategies based on the experience of experts can improve model performance.
Facebook
TwitterThis research used data mining approaches to better understand factors affecting the formation of secondary organic aerosol (SOA). Although numerous laboratory and computational studies have been completed on SOA formation, it is still challenging to determine factors that most influence SOA formation. Experimental data were based on previous work described by Offenberg et al. (2017), where volume concentrations of SOA were measured in 139 laboratory experiments involving the oxidation of single hydrocarbons under different operating conditions. Three different data mining methods were used, including nearest neighbor, decision tree, and pattern mining. Both decision tree and pattern mining approaches identified similar chemical and experimental conditions that were important to SOA formation. Among these important factors included the number of methyl groups, the number of rings and the presence of dinitrogen pentoxide (N2O5). This dataset is associated with the following publication: Olson, D., J. Offenberg, M. Lewandowski, T. Kleindienst, K. Docherty, M. Jaoui, J.D. Krug, and T. Riedel. Data mining approaches to understanding the formation of secondary organic aerosol. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY, USA, 252: 118345, (2021).
Facebook
TwitterThis paper proposes a scalable, local privacy preserving algorithm for distributed Peer-to-Peer (P2P) data aggregation useful for many advanced data mining/analysis tasks such as average/sum computation, decision tree induction, feature selection, and more. Unlike most multi-party privacy-preserving data mining algorithms, this approach works in an asynchronous manner through local interactions and it is highly scalable. It particularly deals with the distributed computation of the sum of a set of numbers stored at different peers in a P2P network in the context of a P2P web mining application. The proposed optimization based privacy-preserving technique for computing the sum allows different peers to specify different privacy requirements without having to adhere to a global set of parameters for the chosen privacy model. Since distributed sum computation is a frequently used primitive, the proposed approach is likely to have significant impact on many data mining tasks such as multi-party privacy-preserving clustering, frequent itemset mining, and statistical aggregate computation.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.htfmarketinsights.com/privacy-policyhttps://www.htfmarketinsights.com/privacy-policy
Global AI Clinical Data Mining Market is segmented by Application (Healthcare_Pharmaceuticals_Biotechnology_IT_Research), Type (Data Mining Algorithms_Clinical Trial Data Analysis_EHR Data Mining_AI for Predictive Analytics_Medical Data Integration), and Geography (North America_ LATAM_ West Europe_Central & Eastern Europe_ Northern Europe_ Southern Europe_ East Asia_ Southeast Asia_ South Asia_ Central Asia_ Oceania_ MEA)
Facebook
TwitterDistributed data mining from privacy-sensitive multi-party data is likely to play an important role in the next generation of integrated vehicle health monitoring systems. For example, consider an airline manufacturer [tex]$\mathcal{C}$[/tex] manufacturing an aircraft model [tex]$A$[/tex] and selling it to five different airline operating companies [tex]$\mathcal{V}_1 \dots \mathcal{V}_5$[/tex]. These aircrafts, during their operation, generate huge amount of data. Mining this data can reveal useful information regarding the health and operability of the aircraft which can be useful for disaster management and prediction of efficient operating regimes. Now if the manufacturer [tex]$\mathcal{C}$[/tex] wants to analyze the performance data collected from different aircrafts of model-type [tex]$A$[/tex] belonging to different airlines then central collection of data for subsequent analysis may not be an option. It should be noted that the result of this analysis may be statistically more significant if the data for aircraft model [tex]$A$[/tex] across all companies were available to [tex]$\mathcal{C}$[/tex]. The potential problems arising out of such a data mining scenario are: