| Literature DB >> 24688316 |
Shahaboddin Shamshirband1, Somayeh Hessam2, Hossein Javidnia3, Mohsen Amiribesheli4, Shaghayegh Vahdat2, Dalibor Petković5, Abdullah Gani6, Miss Laiha Mat Kiah6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a high risk of tuberculosis (TB) disease diagnosis among conventional methods.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial Immune Recognition System; Fuzzy system; Safety.; Tuberculosis
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24688316 PMCID: PMC3970105 DOI: 10.7150/ijms.8249
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Med Sci ISSN: 1449-1907 Impact factor: 3.738
Statistical properties of tuberculosis database
| Input parameters | Average value | Standard derivation | Maximum value | Minimum value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ā | ( | ( | ( | |
| Hemoglobin | 11.33 | 2.82 | 16.80 | 6.16 |
| Platelet | 394.57 | 201.84 | 818.00 | 49.00 |
| WBC | 9.84 | 5.49 | 22.70 | 1.33 |
| Neutrophil | 8.62 | 6.08 | 21.98 | 1.00 |
| Lymphocyte | 1.66 | 1.25 | 5.00 | 0.02 |
| Erythrocyte sedimentation | 50.36 | 40.36 | 125.00 | 1.00 |
| Alanine aminotransferase | 140.04 | 117.62 | 377.00 | 8.00 |
| Alkaline phosphatase | 493.44 | 495.33 | 1629.00 | 31.00 |
| Lactate dehydrogenase | 1091.17 | 780.15 | 2616.00 | 210.00 |
| Albumin concentration | 3.17 | 1.25 | 5.00 | 1.02 |
Fuzzy States proposed by the rules.
| Number of states | Status of detection | Leukocytes (WBC) | Haemoglobin | Platelet | Neutrophil | Lymphocyte | Erythrocyte | Alanine | Alkaline | Lactate | Albumin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ∂1 | Goal = Bad | Low | Low | Low | Medium | Medium | High | Low | Medium | High | Low |
| ∂2 | Goal = Bad | Medium | Low | High | Low | Medium | Low | Medium | High | Low | High |
| ∂3 | Normal = Average | High | Medium | Low | High | High | Medium | High | Low | Medium | Medium |
| ∂4 | Goal =Bad | Medium | High | Med | Low | Low | Low | High | High | Low | High |
| ∂5 | Goal =Bad | High | Low | High | Medium | High | Medium | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
| ∂6 | Normal = Average | Medium | Medium | Med | Medium | High | Low | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |
| ∂7 | Normal = Good | Medium | Medium | High | Medium | Medium | High | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
| ∂8 | Normal = Average | Low | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
| ∂9 | Goal = Bad | High | High | Med | Low | Low | Medium | Medium | High | High | High |
| ∂10 | Normal = Good | Medium | High | Med | High | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
The fuzzy rules.
| if (Leucocyte=Low AND Hemoglobin=Low AND Platelet=Low AND Neutrophil=Medium AND Lymphocyte=Medium AND Erythrocyte=High AND Alanine=Low AND Alkaline=Medium AND Lactate=High AND Albumin=Low) Then (status=Bad) |
|---|
| if (Leucocyte=Medium AND Hemoglobin=Low AND Platelet=High AND Neutrophil=Low AND Lymphocyte=Medium AND Erythrocyte=Low AND Alanine=Medium AND Alkaline=High AND Lactate=Low AND Albumin=High) Then (status=Bad) |
| if (Leucocyte=Medium && Hemoglobin=Medium && Platelet=Medium && Neutrophil=Medium && Lymphocyte=High && Erythrocyte=Low && Alanine=Medium && Alkaline=Medium && Lactate=High && Albumin=Medium) Then (status=Average) |
| if (Leucocyte=Medium && Hemoglobin=Medium && Platelet=High && Neutrophil=Medium && Lymphocyte=Medium && Erythrocyte=High && Alanine=Medium && Alkaline=Medium && Lactate=Medium && Albumin=Medium) Then (status=Good) |
| if (Leucocyte=Medium AND Hemoglobin=High AND Platelet=Medium AND Neutrophil=High AND Lymphocyte=Medium AND Erythrocyte=Medium AND Alanine=Medium AND Alkaline=Medium AND Lactate=Medium AND Albumin=Medium) Then (status=Good) |
Parameters used in FQ-AIS for the tuberculosis disease dataset.
| Parameters used | Tuberculosis disease dataset |
|---|---|
| Mutation rate | 0.1 |
| ATS (affinity threshold scalar) | 0.2 |
| Stimulation threshold | 0.99 |
| Clonal rate | 10 |
| Hyper clonal rate | 2 |
| Iteration number | 500 |
| Number of resources in learning-AIRS | 175 |
Obtained efficiency parameters for highest classification precision.
| Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | 10-Fold cross validation (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 99.14 | 100 | 99.56 | 89 |
Classification accuracies achieved by the research's method and other methods from the literature.
| Author (Year) | Method | Classification accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Philips et al. | Fuzzy logic | 82.6 |
| Porcel et al. | C4.5 decision tree | 97.45 |
| Er et al. | Neural Network | 95.08 |
| Ansari et al. | Neuro fuzzy | 96 |
| Chang et al. | Support Vector Machine | 98.2 |
| Zhao et al. | Q-learning algorithm | 97.1 |
| Polat et al. | Artificial immune recognition system with fuzzy | 99.15 |
| Goodman et al. | Optimized- LVQ (10×CV) | 96.7 |
| Goodman et al. | Big- LVQ (10×CV) | 96.8 |
| Goodman et al. | AIRS (10×CV) | 97.2 |
| Abonyi and Szeifert | Supervised fuzzy clustering (10×CV) | 95.57 |
| Our proposed method | Fuzzy with AIRS | 99.70 |
Figure 1Detection accuracy for fuzzy AIRS