| Literature DB >> 30845242 |
Cirlene de Lima Marinho1, Maria Christina Paixão Maioli2, Jorge Luis Machado do Amaral3, Agnaldo José Lopes4,5, Pedro Lopes de Melo1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A better understanding of sickle cell anemia (SCA) and improvements in drug therapy and health policy have contributed to the emergence of a large population of adults living with this disease. The mechanisms by which SCA produces adverse effects on the respiratory system of these patients are largely unknown. Fractional-order (FrOr) models have a high potential to improve pulmonary clinical science and could be useful for diagnostic purposes, offering accurate models with an improved ability to mimic nature. Part 2 of this two-part study examines the changes in respiratory mechanics in patients with SCA using the new perspective of the FrOr models. These results are compared with those obtained in traditional forced oscillation (FOT) parameters, investigated in Part 1 of the present study, complementing this first analysis. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30845242 PMCID: PMC6405112 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213257
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Changes of the parameters obtained from the fractional-order model in the control group and patients with normal (NE) and abnormal (AE) spirometry: Fractional inertance (FrL; A) and associated fractional-order angle (α; B), the fractional compliance (FrC; C) and associated fractional-order angle (β; D), respiratory damping (G; E), elastance (H; F) and hysteresivity (η; G). The top and the bottom of the box plot represent the 25th- to 75th-percentile values while the circle represents the mean value, and the bar across the box represents the 50th-percentile value. The whiskers outside the box represent the 10th-to 90th-percentile values. *p<0.05, **p<0.01 and ***p<0.001 related to the control group.
Correlation analysis among fractional-order parameters and spirometric results. Significance was analyzed after Bonferroni correction. The highest associations are described in bold.
| FEV1 | FEV1 | FVC | FVC | FEV1/FVC | FEF max | FEF max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrL | -0.51 | -0.49 | -0.49 | -0.54 | -0.08 | -0.58 | |
| α | -0.22 | 0.001 | -0.27 | -0.04 | 0.09 | -0.26 | 0.002 |
| FrC | 0.44 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 0.09 | -0.20 | |
| β | 0.42 | 0.53 | 0.38 | 0.15 | 0.31 | 0.49 | |
| G | -0.49 | -0.57 | -0.52 | -0.19 | -0.30 | -0.23 | |
| H | -0.27 | 0.02 | -0.28 | 0.02 | -0.01 | -0.02 | 0.30 |
| η | -0.45 | -0.40 | -0.57 | -0.17 | -0.31 | -0.47 |
FEV1: forced expiratory volume in the first second; FVC: forced vital capacity; FEF: forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of the FVC; %: percentage of the predicted values. FrL: fractional-order inertance; α: fractional inertance coefficient; FrC: fractional-order compliance; β: fractional compliance coefficient; G: damping factor; H: elastance; η: hysteresivity coefficient.
Correlation analysis among fractional-order parameters and volumetric results. Significance was analyzed after Bonferroni correction.
The highest associations are described in bold.
| TLC | TLC | FRC | FRC | RV | RV | RV/TLC | RV/TLC (%) | Raw | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrL | -0.34 | -0.51 | -0.35 | -0.32 | 0.02 | -0.12 | 0.44 | 0.42 | |
| α | -0.12 | 0.06 | -0.12 | 0.05 | 0.08 | -0.11 | 0.29 | 0.13 | 0.03 |
| FrC | 0.29 | 0.04 | -0.02 | 0.03 | 0.18 | -0.31 | -0.13 | 0.03 | |
| β | 0.27 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.05 | 0.15 | -0.27 | -0.35 | -0.49 | |
| G | -0.28 | -0.43 | -0.17 | 0.02 | -0.35 | 0.45 | 0.34 | 0.33 | |
| H | -0.14 | 0.10 | -0.17 | 0.15 | 0.03 | -0.17 | 0.23 | 0.02 | -0.15 |
| η | -0.26 | -0.36 | -0.34 | -0.04 | -0.19 | 0.29 | 0.35 | 0.47 |
TLC: total lung capacity; FRC: functional residual capacity; RV: residual volume; Raw airway resistance.
Correlation analysis among fractional-order parameters and pulmonary diffusion capacity results.
Significance was analyzed after Bonferroni correction.The highest associations are described in bold.
| DLCOa | DLCOa (%) | DLCOc | DLCOc (%) | DLCO/AVc | DLCO/AVc (%) | AV | AV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrL | -0.65 | -0.43 | -0.51 | -0.06 | -0.11 | -0.51 | -0.63 | |
| α | -0.17 | 0.07 | -0.29 | -0.01 | -0.17 | -0.06 | -0.26 | -0.05 |
| FrC | 0.22 | -0.07 | 0.31 | 0.00 | -0.04 | -0.08 | 0.14 | |
| β | 0.51 | 0.23 | 0.51 | -0.16 | -0.03 | 0.39 | 0.65 | |
| G | -0.54 | -0.51 | -0.42 | -0.44 | 0.01 | -0.02 | -0.54 | |
| H | -0.08 | 0.23 | -0.24 | 0.10 | -0.10 | 0.00 | -0.24 | 0.06 |
| η | -0.51 | -0.25 | -0.52 | 0.15 | 0.02 | -0.41 | -0.65 |
DLCO: carbon monoxide diffusion capacity; AV: alveolar volume; diffusion coefficient (DLCO/AV); a: values without correction; c: corrected for the concentration level of hemoglobin; %: percentage of the predicted values.
Correlation analysis among fractional-order parameters and respiratory muscle pressure.
Significance was analyzed after Bonferroni correction. The highest associations are described in bold.
| Pi | Pi (%) | Pe | Pe (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrL | 0.23 | -0.27 | -0.44 | |
| α | 0.02 | -0.06 | -0.10 | 0.10 |
| FrC | -0.10 | 0.10 | 0.17 | -0.07 |
| β | -0.25 | 0.23 | 0.41 | |
| G | 0.18 | -0.20 | -0.25 | |
| H | -0.01 | -0.03 | -0.02 | 0.20 |
| η | 0.24 | -0.22 | -0.40 |
Pi: maximal inspiratory pressure; Pe: maximum expiratory pressure.
Correlation analysis among fractional-order parameters and 6MWT results. Significance was analyzed after Bonferroni correction.
The highest associations are described in bold.
| 6MWT | 6MWT (%) | RR Initial | RR | SpO2 Initial | SpO2 | Borg Scale Initial | Borg Scale Final | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrL | -0.30 | -0.23 | 0.23 | 0.30 | -0.23 | -0.29 | 0.04 | |
| α | -0.06 | 0.09 | -0.12 | 0.01 | 0.29 | 0.25 | -0.18 | -0.06 |
| FrC | 0.11 | -0.11 | 0.06 | -0.03 | -0.08 | -0.03 | -0.07 | 0.07 |
| β | 0.27 | 0.29 | -0.35 | -0.31 | 0.50 | -0.17 | -0.41 | |
| G | -0.25 | 0.19 | 0.22 | -0.30 | 0.03 | 0.28 | ||
| H | -0.11 | 0.09 | -0.15 | -0.06 | 0.25 | 0.21 | -0.14 | -0.15 |
| η | -0.29 | -0.30 | 0.35 | 0.30 | -0.51 | 0.16 | 0.41 |
6MWT: Six-minute walk test distance; (%): predicted percentage; RR: Respiratory rate; SpO2: Peripheral oxygen saturation.
Diagnostic accuracy of the fractional-order parameters in the detection of respiratory alterations in patients with sickle cell disease.
Values obtained in patients with normal values in the spirometric exam and abnormal spirometry.
| FrL | α | C | β | G | H | η | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal exam | |||||||
| AUC | 0.786 | 0.763 | 0.743 | ||||
| Se (%) | 90.48 | 66.67 | 76.19 | 95.24 | 76.19 | 90.48 | 95.24 |
| Sp (%) | 91.30 | 82.61 | 65.22 | 95.65 | 69.57 | 91.30 | 95.65 |
| Cut-off | >0.137 | ≤0.606 | >0.033 | ≤0.623 | >14.098 | ≤25.06 | >0.599 |
| Abnormal exam | |||||||
| AUC | 0.731 | 0.624 | 0.859 | ||||
| Se (%) | 87.50 | 58.33 | 66.67 | 100.00 | 70.83 | 79.17 | 100.00 |
| Sp (%) | 91.30 | 86.96 | 65.22 | 95.65 | 95.65 | 91.30 | 95.65 |
| Cut-off | >0.137 | ≤0.598 | >0.033 | ≤0.623 | >18.341 | ≤24.931 | >0.599 |
AUC: area under the receiver-operator curve; Se: sensibility; Sp: specificity.
Fig 2Leave-one-out cross-validation analysis performed in the most discriminative parameters described in Table 6 in the presence of normal spirometric exams (A) and abnormal spirometry (B).
Fig 3ROC curves, AUCs and the 95% confidence interval for the most accurate parameters observed in spirometry, classical FOT analysis and for the FrOr model in patients with normal exams (A) and with abnormal spirometric exams (B). The AUCs of FEF% and S were similar in the NE group (p = ns) and η showed a significantly higher AUC than FEF% (p<0.03) and S (p = 0.01). In patients with abnormal spirometric exams (B), η had a significantly higher AUC than the best traditional FOT parameter (Cdyn, p = 0.005).
Fig 4Results considering the more restrictive analysis using leave-one-out cross-validation in the best FOT parameter and FOT associated with machine learning methods (obtained in the first part of this research [28]). These results are compared with those obtained in the present study using FrOr modeling and FrOr modeling combined with machine learning methods in patients with normal (A) and abnormal (B) spirometry.
Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the machine learning algorithms using all FrOr parameters in detecting respiratory alterations in patients with sickle cell anemia and normal and abnormal spirometric exams.
| SVML | ADAB | 1-NN | RF | SVMR | PARZEN | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal exam | ||||||
| AUC | 0.92 | 0.82 | 0.95 | 0.92 | 0.90 | |
| Se (%) | 95.2 | 85.7 | 95.2 | 95.2 | 95.2 | 81.0 |
| Sp (%) | 95.7 | 82.6 | 95.7 | 95.7 | 95.7 | 95.7 |
| Abnormal exam | ||||||
| AUC | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.96 | 0.90 | 0.89 | |
| Se (%) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 97.5 | 91.7 |
| Sp (%) | 95.7 | 82.6 | 95.7 | 95.7 | 91.3 | 95.7 |
SVML: Support Vector Machine with Linear Kernel
ADAB: Adaboost with decision tree classifiers
1-NN: K Nearest Neighbor (K = 1)
RF: Random Forests
SVMR: Support Vector Machine with Radial Basis Kernel
PARZEN: Parzen classifier
Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the machine learning algorithms using an exhaustive search of the best FrOr parameters in detecting respiratory alterations in patients with sickle cell anemia and normal spirometric exams.
| SVML | ADAB | 1-NN | RF | SVMR | PARZEN | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal exam | ||||||
| AUC | 0.95 | 0.89 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | |
| Se (%) | 95.2 | 95.2 | 95.2 | 95.2 | 95.2 | 95.2 |
| Sp (%) | 95.7 | 91.3 | 95.7 | 95.7 | 95.7 | 91.3 |
| Parameters | (FrL,β) | (α,η) | (β,G,η) | (FrL,G,η) | (L,β) | (L,β,η) |
| Abnormal exam | ||||||
| AUC | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.98 | |
| Se (%) | 100.0 | 91.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 87.5 | 91.7 |
| Sp (%) | 95.7 | 87.0 | 95.7 | 95.7 | 95.7 | 100.0 |
| Parameters | (FrL,β) | (FrL,G,η) | (β,G,η) | (β,G,η) | (FrL,α,C,G,η) | (β) |