| Literature DB >> 28133611 |
Jianfeng Zhang1, Jiatuo Xu1, Xiaojuan Hu2, Qingguang Chen3, Liping Tu2, Jingbin Huang1, Ji Cui1.
Abstract
Objective. The purpose of this research is to develop a diagnostic method of diabetes based on standardized tongue image using support vector machine (SVM). Methods. Tongue images of 296 diabetic subjects and 531 nondiabetic subjects were collected by the TDA-1 digital tongue instrument. Tongue body and tongue coating were separated by the division-merging method and chrominance-threshold method. With extracted color and texture features of the tongue image as input variables, the diagnostic model of diabetes with SVM was trained. After optimizing the combination of SVM kernel parameters and input variables, the influences of the combinations on the model were analyzed. Results. After normalizing parameters of tongue images, the accuracy rate of diabetes predication was increased from 77.83% to 78.77%. The accuracy rate and area under curve (AUC) were not reduced after reducing the dimensions of tongue features with principal component analysis (PCA), while substantially saving the training time. During the training for selecting SVM parameters by genetic algorithm (GA), the accuracy rate of cross-validation was grown from 72% or so to 83.06%. Finally, we compare with several state-of-the-art algorithms, and experimental results show that our algorithm has the best predictive accuracy. Conclusions. The diagnostic method of diabetes on the basis of tongue images in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is of great value, indicating the feasibility of digitalized tongue diagnosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28133611 PMCID: PMC5241479 DOI: 10.1155/2017/7961494
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1TDA-1 tongue instrument.
Figure 2Tongue diagnosis analysis system.
Figure 3The segmentation of tongue body and coating.
Figure 4Map of classification model.
Figure 5Flow chart of GA-SVM.
Samples before and after equalization.
| Samples | Diabetes group | Nondiabetes group |
|---|---|---|
| Original | 296 | 531 |
| Equalized | 531 | 531 |
Figure 6Result of PCA.
Figure 7Fitness curve of SVM parameters optimized by GA.
SVM classification before and after data processing.
| Datasets | Accuracy of cross-validation (%) | Accuracy of training samples (%) | Accuracy of test samples (%) | Running time (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw data | 81.65 | 100.00 | 77.83 | 817.86 |
| Normalized data | 84.35 | 99.53 | 78.77 | 747.40 |
| Normalized data with PCA | 83.06 | 99.88 | 79.72 | 465.52 |
Figure 8The ROC curve (raw data).
Figure 9The ROC curve (normalized data).
Figure 10The ROC curve (normalized data with PCA).
Specificity, sensitivity, and AUC of SVM classification before and after data processing.
| Datasets | Specificity (%) | Sensitivity (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raw data | 81.05 | 75.21 | 0.8773 |
| Normalized data | 82.80 | 75.63 | 0.9065 |
| Normalized data with PCA | 83.16 | 76.92 | 0.9037 |
Result compared with other algorithms.
| Algorithms | Accuracy (%) | Specificity (%) | Sensitivity (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 78.77 | 80.18 | 77.36 | 0.8471 |
| Naive Bayes | 75.94 | 78.30 | 73.58 | 0.8248 |
| BP-NN | 75.00 | 73.58 | 76.42 | 0.8285 |
| GA-SVM | 79.72 | 83.16 | 76.92 | 0.9037 |