| Literature DB >> 31003541 |
Yu-Hsuan Liao1, Zhong-Chuang Wang2,3, Fu-Gui Zhang4, Maysam F Abbod5, Chung-Hung Shih6,7, Jiann-Shing Shieh8.
Abstract
One concern to the patients is the off-line detection of pneumonia infection status after using the ventilator in the intensive care unit. Hence, machine learning methods for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) rapid diagnose are proposed. A popular device, Cyranose 320 e-nose, is usually used in research on lung disease, which is a highly integrated system and sensor comprising 32 array using polymer and carbon black materials. In this study, a total of 24 subjects were involved, including 12 subjects who are infected with pneumonia, and the rest are non-infected. Three layers of back propagation artificial neural network and support vector machine (SVM) methods were applied to patients' data to predict whether they are infected with VAP with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. Furthermore, in order to improve the accuracy and the generalization of the prediction models, the ensemble neural networks (ENN) method was applied. In this study, ENN and SVM prediction models were trained and tested. In order to evaluate the models' performance, a fivefold cross-validation method was applied. The results showed that both ENN and SVM models have high recognition rates of VAP with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, with 0.9479 ± 0.0135 and 0.8686 ± 0.0422 accuracies, 0.9714 ± 0.0131, 0.9250 ± 0.0423 sensitivities, and 0.9288 ± 0.0306, 0.8639 ± 0.0276 positive predictive values, respectively. The ENN model showed better performance compared to SVM in the recognition of VAP with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the two models were 0.9842 ± 0.0058 and 0.9410 ± 0.0301, respectively, showing that both models are very stable and accurate classifiers. This study aims to assist the physician in providing a scientific and effective reference for performing early detection in Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection or other diseases.Entities:
Keywords: artificial neural network; cross-validation; ensemble neural networks; intensive care unit; support vector machine; ventilator-associated pneumonia
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31003541 PMCID: PMC6514817 DOI: 10.3390/s19081866
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Several diseases and the corresponding indicator gases.
| Common Disease | Indicator Gases |
|---|---|
| Renal disease | Ammonia, Mono-methylamine, Dimethylamine, Trimethylamine |
| Skin Disease | Melanoma biomarkers, Fatty acids |
| Diabetes | Glyceria, Acetone |
| Lung Cancer | Styrene, Decane, Isoprene, Benzene, Undecane, 1-hexene, Hexanal, Propyl |
| Asthma | Nitric Oxide (NO) |
Figure 1Breath gases collection in ICU (intensive care unit).
Twelve patients with infection Pseudomonas aeruginosa and twelve patients of non-infection (WBC: White Blood Cell (103/uL); PLT: Platelet (103/uL); Seg: Segmented Neutrophils (%); CRP: C-Reactive Protein (mg/L); N/A: Not Available; and X: Non-infection patient).
| No. | Sex | Age | WBC | PLT | Seg | CRP | Sputum | No. | Sex | Age | WBC | PLT | Seg | CRP | Sputum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | male | 87 | 7.38 | 120 | 61.4 | 2.07 |
| 1 | male | 87 | 5.27 | 146 | 58 | N/A | X |
| 2 | male | 90 | 10.23 | 363 | 70.8 | N/A |
| 2 | male | 83 | 6.18 | 11 | 86.1 | N/A | X |
| 3 | female | 80 | 13.73 | 258 | 83.1 | 7.09 |
| 3 | male | 44 | 20.95 | 194 | 90.4 | N/A | X |
| 4 | male | 63 | 12.05 | 39 | 91.1 | 21.93 |
| 4 | female | 51 | 16.25 | 352 | 89.2 | 3.52 | X |
| 5 | male | 80 | 31.8 | 286 | 93.5 | 29.12 |
| 5 | female | 68 | 9.7 | 191 | 83.9 | 13.05 | X |
| 6 | male | 54 | 3.25 | 75 | 93 | 11.43 |
| 6 | male | 51 | 6.75 | 178 | 77.3 | N/A | X |
| 7 | male | 59 | 10.62 | 342 | 75.2 | 5.99 |
| 7 | female | 53 | 20.56 | 204 | 93.6 | 0.64 | X |
| 8 | male | 57 | 9.11 | 154 | 82.8 | N/A |
| 8 | male | 49 | 17.59 | 309 | 80.7 | N/A | X |
| 9 | male | 49 | 13.23 | 170 | 82.8 | N/A |
| 9 | male | 49 | 13.15 | 438 | 80.5 | N/A | X |
| 10 | male | 83 | 12.58 | 142 | 88.7 | 8.61 |
| 10 | male | 84 | 25.82 | 274 | 85.5 | 7.86 | X |
| 11 | male | 79 | 8.98 | 301 | 73.4 | N/A |
| 11 | female | 70 | 6.86 | 306 | 40.2 | N/A | X |
| 12 | female | 61 | 10.8 | 174 | 83.6 | 12.47 |
| 12 | female | 78 | 23.31 | 206 | 89.6 | N/A | X |
Figure 2Sensors response ratio.
Figure 3The mean absolute error of the value of sensor resistance between the data of total 12 patients infected with pneumonia and the data of each non-infected patient (i.e., from (a) to (l) of all 12 patients) in all 32 sensors.
Figure 4Cross-validating an ENN (ensemble neural networks) model (note: Acc means Accuracy).
Figure 5Flowchart for best parameters selection for the SVM (support vector machine) model.
The ROC curve analyses by test dataset for ENN models.
| Dataset | Model Type | AUC | ACC | SEN | PPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| At Best Threshold | |||||
| 1 | ENN Model | 0.9815 | 0.9304 | 0.9929 | 0.8825 |
| 2 | ENN Model | 0.9801 | 0.9518 | 0.9571 | 0.9470 |
| 3 | ENN Model | 0.9925 | 0.9375 | 0.9679 | 0.9125 |
| 4 | ENN Model | 0.9790 | 0.9625 | 0.9714 | 0.9544 |
| 5 | ENN Model | 0.9879 | 0.9571 | 0.9679 | 0.9476 |
| Average | ENN Model | 0.9842 ± 0.0058 | 0.9479 ± 0.0135 | 0.9714 ± 0.0131 | 0.9288 ± 0.0306 |
SVM grid search results for choosing the optimal parameters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||
|
| 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.671 | 0.288 | 0.361 | 0.500 | 0.584 | 0.500 | 0.486 | |
|
| 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.716 | 0.280 | 0.396 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.443 | |
|
| 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.254 | 0.282 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.661 | 0.500 | |
|
| 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.286 | 0.305 | 0.352 | 0.513 | 0.682 | 0.679 | 0.548 | |
|
| 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.346 | 0.500 | 0.363 | 0.671 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.679 | |
|
| 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.318 | 0.461 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.711 | 0.500 | |
|
| 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.305 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | |
|
| 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.695 | 0.471 | 0.500 | 0.500 |
| 0.500 | 0.707 | |
|
| 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.695 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.575 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.730 | |
|
| 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.695 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.546 | 0.755 | 0.500 | 0.786 | |
|
| 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.695 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.743 | 0.500 | 0.8250 | |
The ROC curve analyses by test dataset for SVM models.
| Dataset | Model Type | AUC | ACC | SEN | PPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| At Best Parameters | |||||
| 1 | SVM Model | 0.9524 | 0.8786 | 0.8786 | 0.8786 |
| 2 | SVM Model | 0.9618 | 0.8946 | 0.8821 | 0.9048 |
| 3 | SVM Model | 0.8878 | 0.8786 | 0.9393 | 0.8376 |
| 4 | SVM Model | 0.9521 | 0.8964 | 0.9714 | 0.8447 |
| 5 | SVM Model | 0.9508 | 0.7946 | 0.9536 | 0.8536 |
| Average | SVM Model | 0.9410 ± 0.0301 | 0.8686 ± 0.0422 | 0.9250 ± 0.0423 | 0.8639 ± 0.0276 |
Figure 6The ROC curves of ENN models: (a) dataset1, (b) dataset2, (c) dataset3, (d) dataset4, and (e) dataset5.