| Literature DB >> 32368356 |
Reena Das1, Saikat Datta2, Anilava Kaviraj3, Soumendra Nath Sanyal4, Peter Nielsen4, Izabela Nielsen4, Prashant Sharma1, Tanmay Sanyal5, Kartick Dey6, Subrata Saha4.
Abstract
The most effective way to combat β-thalassemias is to prevent the birth of children with thalassemia major. Therefore, a cost-effective screening method is essential to identify β-thalassemia traits (BTT) and differentiate normal individuals from carriers. We considered five hematological parameters to formulate two separate scoring mechanisms, one for BTT detection, and another for joint determination of hemoglobin E (HbE) trait and BTT by employing decision trees, Naïve Bayes classifier, and Artificial neural network frameworks on data collected from the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. We validated both the scores on two different data sets and found 100% sensitivity of both the scores with their respective threshold values. The results revealed the specificity of the screening scores to be 79.25% and 91.74% for BTT and 58.62% and 78.03% for the joint score of HbE and BTT, respectively. A lower Youden's index was measured for the two scores compared to some existing indices. Therefore, the proposed scores can obviate a large portion of the population from expensive high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis during the screening of BTT, and joint determination of BTT and HbE, respectively, thereby saving significant resources and cost currently being utilized for screening purpose.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial neural networks; Decision trees; Thalassemia carrier screening
Year: 2020 PMID: 32368356 PMCID: PMC7186556 DOI: 10.1016/j.jare.2020.04.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Adv Res ISSN: 2090-1224 Impact factor: 10.479
Fig. 1Data analysis scheme used for developing scores.
Correctly classified instances and error details for the C4.5 and NB classifier.
| Scenarios | Classifier | Correctly classified instances (%) | Kappa statistics | MAE | RMSE | RAE (%) | RRSE (%) | Precision of NB Classifier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BTT test data set | C 4.5 | 95.27 | 0.90 | 0.06 | 0.21 | 12.21 | 41.71 | |
| NB | 93.83 | 0.87 | 0.07 | 0.22 | 14.48 | 43.60 | RDW-0.17 | |
| HbE and BTT test data set | C 4.5 | 90.09 | 0.61 | 0.13 | 0.30 | 47.54 | 80.60 | |
| NB | 85.95 | 0.40 | 0.18 | 0.30 | 66.09 | 82.11 | MCV-0.19 | |
Mean of coefficients of relative importance factors of five hematological parameters.
| Hematological Parameters | ||
|---|---|---|
| RBF | MLP | |
| Hb | 0.4224 | 0.6222 |
| RDW | 0.2351 | 0.5351 |
| MCH | 0.6852 | 0.5459 |
| MCV | 0.9103 | 0.9103 |
| RBC | 0.5077 | 0.5077 |
| Average correct percentage of prediction = (correct percent of the training set, test set, and holdout set)/3 | 93.76 | 95.24 |
Mean, S.E., median, and 95% confidence level (CL) of the coefficient of five parameters.
| Hb | RDW | MCH | MCV | RBC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 0.6222 | 0.5351 | 0.5459 | 0.9103 | 0.5077 |
| Standard Error | 0.0457 | 0.0345 | 0.0388 | 0.0255 | 0.0334 |
| Median | 0.7340 | 0.4999 | 0.5358 | 1 | 0.5249 |
| CL (95.0%) | 0.0915 | 0.0692 | 0.0776 | 0.0511 | 0.0669 |
Cut-off values for hematological parameters in some existing literature.
| Parameters | Lafferty et al. | Jiang et al. | Old et al. | Rathod et al. | Sahli et al. | Cao et al. | Plengsuree et al. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCH (picogram) | – | – | <27 | <27 | <23 | <27 | <27 |
| MCV (femtoliters) | <72 | <80 | <79 | <76.5 | <75 | <78 | <76 |
| RBC (million/microliter) | – | – | – | >5 | >5 | – | >5 |
| RDW % | – | – | – | >13.6 | >14 | – | >14 |
Comparative outcomes of proposed scoring mechanisms with existing indices.
| Index | Formula | BTT | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Efficiency | Youden’s Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mentzer | <13 | 70.31 | 96.28 | 86.54 | 90.50 | 89.68 | 66.59 | |
| Srivastava | <3.8 | 62.50 | 97.34 | 88.89 | 88.40 | 88.49 | 59.84 | |
| Shine & Lal | <1530 | 95.31 | 79.79 | 61.62 | 98.04 | 83.73 | 75.10 | |
| Jayabose et al. | <220 | 64.06 | 90.96 | 70.69 | 88.14 | 84.13 | 55.02 | |
| Sirdah et al. | <27 | 64.06 | 97.34 | 89.13 | 88.83 | 88.89 | 61.40 | |
| Ehsani et al. | <15 | 68.75 | 96.81 | 88 | 90.10 | 89.68 | 65.56 | |
| SCS | Eq. | ≤24.99 | 100 | 79.25 | 62.13 | 100 | 84.52 | 79.25 |
| SCS | Eq. | ≤29.323 | 100 | 58.62 | 52 | 100 | 71.43 | 58.62 |
| SCS | Eq. | ≤24.99 | 100 | 91.74 | 34.48 | 100 | 92.08 | 91.74 |
| SCS | Eq. | ≤29.323 | 100 | 78.04 | 35.62 | 100 | 80.42 | 78.04 |
Fig. 2Decision support scheme for SUSOKA application.