| Literature DB >> 26590182 |
Guilin Meng1, Yan Tan1, Min Fang1, Hongyan Yang1, Xueyuan Liu1, Yanxin Zhao1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to predict the emergency admission of elderly stroke patients in Shanghai by using a multilayer perceptron (MLP) neural network.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26590182 PMCID: PMC4662240 DOI: 10.12659/msm.895334
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Number of patients admitted due to stroke from January 2012 to June 2014.
| Diseases | Total (%) | Male (%) | Median age |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI | 1659 (76.1%) | 977 (58.9%) | 66.1 |
| ICH | 351 (16.1%) | 195 (55.7%) | 61.7 |
| SAH | 170 (7.8%) | 75 (44.1%) | 61.1 |
| Total | 2180 | 1247 (57.2%) | 65.0 |
IS – ischemic stroke, ICH – intracerebral hemorrhage, SAH – subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Meteorological parameters from January 2012 to June 2014.
| Meteorological parameters | Mean/median (lowest–highest) |
|---|---|
| Maximum temperature | 20.54 (2–38)°C |
| Lowest temperature | 14.09 (−3–29)°C |
| Average temperature | 17.32 (0–33)°C |
| Absolute temperature difference | 2.01 (0–13)°C |
| Wind level | 3.44 (0–9) |
| Weather type | 1.00 (1–6) |
Weather type: sunny=1, cloudy=2, rainy=3, thunderstorm=4, snow=5, sleet=6.
Figure 1The daily number of stroke patients. The daily number of stroke patients admitted into the Emergency Department (A) and daily highest temperature (B), lowest temperature (C), average temperature (D), and absolute temperature difference (E) between January 2012 and June 2014.
Model 1 and model 2 established with MLP.
| Groups | Group 1 | Group 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MLP sets | Training | Testing | Prediction | Training | Testing | Prediction |
| 560 | 70 | 70 | 40 | 5 | 5 | |
| Models | Model 1 | Model 2 | ||||
| Validity | 97.2% | 97.0% | ||||
The dependent variable: number of patients admitted;
6 days were randomly removed in order to modeling with MLP;
the validity of both models was >90%;
MLP: multilayer perceptron neural network; Group 1, small number of stroke patients admitted (≤4); Group 2, large number of stroke patients admitted (≥5).
Figure 2Intends probability and gain of model 1. For intend probability, the closer to 1.0, the more stable the model, and for gain, the closer to diagonal, the more reasonable the model.
Figure 3Intends probability and gain of model 2. For intend probability, the closer to 1.0, the more stable the model, and for gain, the closer to diagonal, the more reasonable the model.
Model 1: Importance of different meteorological parameters.
| Importance | Importance standardization | |
|---|---|---|
| Wind level | 0.221 | 54.4% |
| Weather | 0.200 | 49.0% |
| Maximum temperature | 0.036 | 8.9% |
| Lowest temperature | 0.136 | 33.3% |
| Absolute temperature difference | 0.407 | 100.0% |
Model 1=0.407×absolute temperature difference + 0.221×wind level +0.200×weather type + 0.036×highest temperature + 0.136×lowest temperature.
Model 2: The importance of the argument.
| Importance | Importance standardization | |
|---|---|---|
| Wind level | 0.074 | 10.1% |
| Weather | 0.733 | 100.0% |
| Maximum temperature | 0.030 | 4.1% |
| Lowest temperature | 0.035 | 4.8% |
| Absolute temperature different | 0.092 | 12.6% |
| Average temperature | 0.036 | 4.9% |
Model 2=0.733×weather type + 0.074×windlevel + 0.030×maximum temperature + 0.035×lowest temperature + 0.092×absolute temperature change + 0.036×average temperature.
Figure 4Importance of meteorological parameters in models 1 and 2.