| Literature DB >> 31372545 |
Moses E Ekpenyong1, Philip I Etebong1, Tenderwealth C Jackson2.
Abstract
Drug component interactions are most likely to trigger unexpected pharmacological effects with unknown causal mechanisms, hence, demanding the discovery of patterns to establish suitable and effective regimens. This paper proposes a novel framework that embeds machine learning (ML) and multidimensional scaling (MDS) techniques, for efficient prediction of patient response to antiretroviral therapy (ART). To achieve this, experiment databases were created from two independent sources: a publicly available HIV domain datasets of patients with failed treatment - hosted by the Stanford University, hereinafter referred to as the Stanford HIV database, and locally sourced datasets gathered from 13 prominent healthcare facilities treating HIV patients in Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria, hereinafter referred to as the Akwa-Ibom HIV database: with 5,780 and 3,168 individual treatment change episodes (TCEs) of HIV treatment indicators (baseline CD4 count (BCD4), followup CD4 count (FCD4), baseline viral load (BRNA), followup viral load (FRNA), and drug type combination (DType)), observed from 1,521 and 1,301 unique patient records, respectively. A hybridised (two-stage) classification system consuming the Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic (IT2FL) and Deep Neural Network (DNN) was employed to model and optimise patients' response to ART with appreciable error pruning achieved through MDS. Visualisation of the experiment databases showed remarkable immunological changes in the Akwa-Ibom HIV database, as the FCD4 of TCEs clustered far above the BCD4, compared to the Stanford HIV database, where over 40% of FCD4 clustered below the BCD4. Similar changes were noticed for the RNA, as more FRNA copies clustered below the BRNA for the Akwa-Ibom datasets, compared to the Stamford datasets. DNN classification results for both databases showed best performance metrics for the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm when compared with the resilient backpropagation algorithm, with improved drug pattern predictions for experiment with MDS. This paper is most likely to evolve an avenue that triggers interesting combination(s) for optimum patient response, while ensuring minimal side effects, as further findings revealed the superiority of the proposed approach over existing approaches.Entities:
Keywords: Antiretroviral therapy; Applied computing; Computational mathematics; Deep neural network; Fuzzy-multidimensional controller; HIV/AIDS; Health sciences; Immunology; Multi-drug interaction; Pharmaceutical science
Year: 2019 PMID: 31372545 PMCID: PMC6656963 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02080
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Fig. 1Proposed system framework.
Fig. 2IT2FL FOU.
Fig. 3Internal cross section of IT2FL MF.
Input and output fuzzy sets from domain knowledge.
| S/N | Membership grade (MG) | BCD4/FCD4 (Input) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Low {L} | 0 | 225 | 450 | 50 | 275 | 500 |
| 2 | Medium {M} | 300 | 575 | 850 | 350 | 625 | 900 |
| 3 | High {H} | 700 | 1075 | 1450 | 750 | 1125 | 1500 |
| BRNA/FRNA (Input) | |||||||
| 1 | Undetected {U} | 0 | 0.60 | 1.20 | 0.30 | 0.90 | 1.50 |
| 2 | Supressed {S} | 1.00 | 2.15 | 3.30 | 1.20 | 2.35 | 3.50 |
| 3 | Not Supressed {NS} | 2.50 | 4.00 | 5.50 | 3.00 | 4.50 | 6.00 |
| PR (Output) | |||||||
| 1 | No Interaction {NI} | 0 | 27.50 | 55 | 5 | 32.50 | 60 |
| 2 | Very Low Interaction {VLI} | 30 | 47.50 | 65 | 35 | 52.50 | 70 |
| 3 | Low Interaction {LI} | 62 | 68.50 | 75 | 67 | 73.50 | 80 |
| 4 | High Interaction {HI} | 72 | 78.50 | 85 | 77 | 83.50 | 90 |
| 5 | Very High Interaction {VHI} | 82 | 88.50 | 95 | 87 | 93.50 | 100 |
The Mos-Map rule base matrix.
| Baseline CD4 | ||||||||||
| Followup CD4 | ||||||||||
| NIr9 | VLIr18 | VLIr27 | VLIr36 | VLIr45 | LIr54 | VLIr63 | LIr72 | LIr81 | ||
| VLIr8 | VLIr17 | LIr26 | VLIr35 | LIr44 | LIr53 | LIr62 | LIr71 | HIr80 | ||
| VLIr7 | LIr16 | LIr25 | LIr34 | LIr43 | HIr52 | LIr61 | HIr70 | HIr79 | ||
| VLIr6 | VLIr15 | LIr24 | VLIr33 | LIr42 | LIr51 | LIr60 | LIr69 | HIr78 | ||
| VLIr5 | LIr14 | LIr23 | LIr32 | LIr41 | HIr50 | LIr59 | HIr68 | HIr77 | ||
| LIr4 | LIr13 | HIr22 | LIr31 | HIr40 | HIr49 | HIr58 | HIr67 | VHIr76 | ||
| VLIr3 | LIr12 | LIr21 | LIr30 | LIr39 | HIr48 | LIr57 | HIr66 | HIr75 | ||
| LIr2 | LIr11 | HIr20 | LIr29 | HIr38 | HIr47 | HIr56 | HIr65 | VHIr74 | ||
| LIr1 | HIr10 | HIr19 | HIr28 | HIr37 | VHIr46 | HIr55 | VHIr64 | VHIr73 | ||
From Table 2, rules r1, r2 and r3 can be built as follows:
r1.If BCD4 is L-Low and FCD4 is L-Low and BRNA is U-Ubdetected and FRNA is U-Undetected then Interaction is LI-Low Interaction.
r2. If BCD4 is L-Low and FCD4 is L-Low and BRNA is U-Ubdetected and FRNA is S-Suppressed then Interaction is LI-Low Interaction.
r3. If BCD4 is L-Low and FCD4 is L-Low and BRNA is U-Undetected and FRNA is NS-Not Suppressed then Interaction is VLI-Very Low Interaction.
Fig. 4Effect of treatment change episode on CD4 count for Akwa-Ibom HIV and Stanford HIV databases.
Fig. 5Effect of treatment change episode on RNA copies for Akwa-Ibom HIV and Stanford HIV databases.
Analysis of patient response inference.
| Membership grade | Stanford database | Akwa-Ibom database | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCE | Unique Patient ID | % | TCE | Unique Patient ID | % | |
| VHI | 940 | 248 | 16.3051 | 75 | 25 | 1.9216 |
| HI | 1454 | 370 | 24.3261 | 195 | 65 | 4.9962 |
| LI | 1546 | 402 | 26.4300 | 883 | 294 | 22.5980 |
| VLI | 962 | 262 | 17.2255 | 1640 | 547 | 42.0446 |
| NI | 878 | 239 | 15.7133 | 1110 | 370 | 28.4397 |
| Total: | 5780 | 1521 | 100 | 3903 | 1301 | 100 |
Input linguistic variables and target classes for Stanford database.
| Input linguistic variable | Target class | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PID | BCD4 | FCD4 | BRNA | FRNA | DType | PR | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 |
| 1 | 330 | 347 | 3.7 | 3.3 | 3TC + ABC + ATC + AZT + RTV + TDF | 32.67 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 38 | 53 | 5.7 | 5.3 | D4T + DDI + NVP | 30.00 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 949 | 987 | 3.7 | 4.4 | D4T + DDI + EFV | 71.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | 281 | 334 | 3.6 | 3.9 | D4T + DDI + EFV | 30.82 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 288 | 426 | 3.9 | 3.6 | ABC + D4T + EFV | 39.27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 6 | 470 | 459 | 4.1 | 3.2 | 3TC + D4T + DDI + LPV | 48.75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 7 | 694 | 717 | 3.7 | 4.8 | D4T + EFV + NFV | 50.34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 8 | 37 | 50 | 5.3 | 4.9 | ABC + EFV + RTV + SQV | 30.00 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | 242 | 358 | 4.9 | 3.8 | 3TC + DDI + RTV + SQV | 31.65 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | 213 | 274 | 3.7 | 2 | 3TC + ABC + AZT + TDF | 50.00 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | 88 | 149 | 5.3 | 4.2 | ABC + D4T + EFV + NFV | 30.00 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | 316 | 403 | 4 | 4 | D4T + DDI + RTV + SQV | 35.28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 13 | 50 | 105 | 5.1 | 4.7 | APV + D4T + EFV + RTV | 30.00 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | 102 | 159 | 4.9 | 3.9 | 3TC + APV + D4T + DDI + RTV | 30.00 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 103 | 231 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 3TC + D4T + DDI + FPV + RTV | 30.00 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 72 | 159 | 5.1 | 3.4 | AZT + DDI + LPV | 31.20 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 109 | 258 | 4.9 | 1.9 | DRV + FTC + RTV + T20 + TDF | 50.00 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 169 | 213 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 3TC + D4T + RTV + SQV | 30.00 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 212 | 381 | 4.5 | 1.9 | 3TC + D4T + EFV + NFV | 50.00 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 315 | 352 | 4.7 | 3.1 | D4T + DDI + IDV + RTV | 38.61 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Input linguistic variables and target classes for Akwa-Ibom database.
| Input linguistic variable | Target class | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PID | BCD4 | FCD4 | BRNA | FRNA | DType | PR | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 |
| 1 | 440 | 388 | 4.1 | 3.7 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 41.92 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 2 | 429 | 765 | 4.1 | 2.4 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 57.80 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 3 | 307 | 354 | 4.4 | 1.3 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 52.74 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 17 | 675 | 4.4 | 1.3 | AZT+3TC + NVP | 55.00 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 291 | 625 | 4.4 | 1.3 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 53.68 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 180 | 380 | 3.4 | 1.3 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 53.56 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 7 | 240 | 400 | 3.1 | 1.3 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 55.16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 8 | 315 | 601 | 4.1 | 1.3 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 53.68 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | 163 | 875 | 4.1 | 1.9 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 65.57 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | 238 | 642 | 4.1 | 3.7 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 50.00 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | 362 | 689 | 4.2 | 2.1 | AZT+3TC + NVP | 51.94 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 12 | 156 | 512 | 5.4 | 2.8 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 50.00 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 13 | 28 | 52 | 6.3 | 1.6 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 50.00 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | 217 | 502 | 6.1 | 5 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 50.00 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 230 | 763 | 5.1 | 1.8 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 51.78 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 415 | 371 | 3.4 | 1.3 | AZT+3TC + NVP | 56.17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | 286 | 842 | 3.4 | 1.7 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 60.10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 18 | 494 | 657 | 3.3 | 2.1 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 68.44 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 266 | 319 | 3.2 | 2 | TDF+3TC + EFV | 50.82 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 158 | 266 | 4.3 | 3.1 | AZT+3TC + NVP | 37.97 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Classification results for Stanford database with multidimensional scaling.
| No. of layers | Neuron Config. | Train Alg. | R- value | Overall MSE | Val MSE | Test MSE | Gradient | TPR | FPR | Class Acc. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | [6 5 4 3 2] | Trainlm | 0.0253 | |||||||
| Trainrp | 0.8667 | 0.0395 | 0.0461 | 0.0368 | 0.0277 | 0.8635 | 0.0362 | 0.8630 |
Bold signifies performance metric values that meets the defined threshold of this study.
Classification results of Stanford database without multidimensional scaling.
| No. of layers | Neuron Config. | Train Alg. | R- value | Overall MSE | Val MSE | Test MSE | Gradient | TPR | FPR | Class Acc. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | [6 5 4 3 2] | Trainlm | 0.0257 | 0.0249 | 0.0222 | 0.0308 | 0.0188 | |||
| Trainrp | 0.8120 | 0.0552 | 0.0545 | 0.0508 | 0.0210 | 0.8431 | 0.0419 | 0.8440 |
Bold signifies performance metric values that meets the defined threshold of this study.
Classification results of Akwa-Ibom database with multidimensional scaling.
| No. of layers | Neuron Config. | Train Alg. | R- value | Overall MSE | Val MSE | Test MSE | Gradient | TPR | FPR | Class Acc. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | [6 5 4 3 2] | Trainlm | 0.0364 | |||||||
| Trainrp | 0.8323 | 0.0473 | 0.0527 | 0.0612 | 0.0224 | 0.0446 | 0.8391 |
Bold signifies performance metric values that meets the defined threshold of this study.
Classification results of Akwa-Ibom database without multidimensional scaling.
| No. of layers | Neuron Config. | Train Alg. | R- value | Overall MSE | Val MSE | Test MSE | Gradient | TPR | FPR | Class Acc. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | [6 5 4 3 2] | Trainlm | 0.0236 | 0.0207 | 0.0357 | 0.7872 | 0.0185 | |||
| Trainrp | 0.8009 | 0.0569 | 0.0579 | 0.0604 | 0.0234 | 0.8159 | 0.0501 | 0.8252 |
Bold signifies performance metric values that meets the defined threshold of this study.