| Literature DB >> 26495414 |
Yong-Zhi Li1, Guo-Zheng Li2, Jian-Yi Gao1, Zhi-Feng Zhang3, Quan-Chun Fan1, Jia-Tuo Xu3, Gui-E Bai1, Kai-Xian Chen3, Hong-Zhi Shi1, Sheng Sun4, Yu Liu1, Feng-Feng Shao4, Tao Mi1, Xin-Hong Jia5, Shuang Zhao1, Jia-Chang Chen4, Jun-Lian Liu1, Yu-Meng Guo4, Li Ping Tu3.
Abstract
Mars500 study was a psychological and physiological isolation experiment conducted by Russia, the European Space Agency, and China, in preparation for an unspecified future manned spaceflight to the planet Mars. Its intention was to yield valuable psychological and medical data on the effects of the planned long-term deep space mission. In this paper, we present data mining methods to mine medical data collected from the crew consisting of six spaceman volunteers. The synthesis of the four diagnostic methods of TCM, inspection, listening, inquiry, and palpation, is used in our syndrome differentiation. We adopt statistics method to describe the syndrome factor regular pattern of spaceman volunteers. Hybrid optimization based multilabel (HOML) is used as feature selection method and multilabel k-nearest neighbors (ML-KNN) is applied. According to the syndrome factor statistical result, we find that qi deficiency is a base syndrome pattern throughout the entire experiment process and, at the same time, there are different associated syndromes such as liver depression, spleen deficiency, dampness stagnancy, and yin deficiency, due to differences of individual situation. With feature selection, we screen out ten key factors which are essential to syndrome differentiation in TCM. The average precision of multilabel classification model reaches 80%.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26495414 PMCID: PMC4606216 DOI: 10.1155/2015/125736
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Qualitative and quantitative features of inspection.
| Parameter | Qualitative features | Quantitative features |
|---|---|---|
| Tongue color | Dark, pale red, red, crimson, pale purple, dark purple | RGB, HSV mean, feature color proportion |
| Red tongue tip | Tongue tip RGB, HSV mean color difference between tongue tip and the rest | |
|
| ||
| Fur color | White, yellow and white, yellow, and gray black | RGB, HSV mean, proportion of feature color |
|
| ||
| Texture of fur | Thick fur, thin fur | Density degree |
| Curdy fur, greasy fur | Density degree, distribution | |
| Less moss | Coverage ratio | |
| No moss | Coverage ratio | |
| Peeling fur | Defect area | |
|
| ||
| Tongue shape | Fat, thin | Degree of circularity, length-width ratio, with degree |
| Fast insertion | Number and color of tongue tip's circle dot | |
| Crack | Proportion of crack area | |
| Indentation | Size of indentation area | |
| Petechia | Number and color of tongue tip's circle dot | |
| Ecchymosis | Ecchymosis position, ecchymosis RGB, HSV mean | |
|
| ||
| Complexion | Blue, red, yellow, white, black, normal | RGB, HSV mean, feature color proportion |
| Gloss | Glossy, few gloss, no gloss | RGB, HSV mean, feature color proportion |
| Lip color | Dark, red, dark red, purple | RGB, HSV mean, feature color proportion |
Figure 1Basic structure of pulse picture.
Figure 2Frequency of syndrome factor.
Classification results without HOML.
| Dataset | Average precision | Ranking loss | One error | Hamming loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Four diagnostic fusion data | 0.78 | 0.10 | 0.26 | 0.12 |
| Inspection data | 0.77 | 0.10 | 0.31 | 0.12 |
| Palpation data | 0.69 | 0.15 | 0.36 | 0.14 |
Classification results with HOML.
| Dataset | Average precision | Ranking loss | One error | Hamming loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Four types of diagnostic fusion data | 0.80 | 0.09 | 0.25 | 0.12 |
Feature selection results by using HOML.
| Dataset | Feature selection results |
|---|---|
| Four types of diagnostic fusion data | RGB_B_face, Lab_A_tongue_coating, HSV_S_face |
| HSV_H_face, RGB_G_face, Lab_B_face, Lab_L_face | |
| RGB_R_face, HSV_V_face, Lab_B_tongue_coating |
Figure 3Lab value changing trend of tongue body.
Figure 4Lab value changing trend of coating on the tongue.
Figure 5Lab value changing trend of facial overall.
Figure 6Lab value changing trend of forehead.
Figure 7Lab value changing trend of nose.
Figure 8Lab value changing trend of left cheek.
Figure 9Lab value changing trend of right cheek.
Figure 10Lab value changing trend of lip.
Figure 11Lab value changing trend of underjaw.
Figure 12Variation of syndromes.