| Literature DB >> 32838125 |
Akib Mohi Ud Din Khanday1, Syed Tanzeel Rabani1, Qamar Rayees Khan1, Nusrat Rouf1, Masarat Mohi Ud Din2.
Abstract
Technology advancements have a rapid effect on every field of life, be it medical field or any other field. Artificial intelligence has shown the promising results in health care through its decision making by analysing the data. COVID-19 has affected more than 100 countries in a matter of no time. People all over the world are vulnerable to its consequences in future. It is imperative to develop a control system that will detect the coronavirus. One of the solution to control the current havoc can be the diagnosis of disease with the help of various AI tools. In this paper, we classified textual clinical reports into four classes by using classical and ensemble machine learning algorithms. Feature engineering was performed using techniques like Term frequency/inverse document frequency (TF/IDF), Bag of words (BOW) and report length. These features were supplied to traditional and ensemble machine learning classifiers. Logistic regression and Multinomial Naïve Bayes showed better results than other ML algorithms by having 96.2% testing accuracy. In future recurrent neural network can be used for better accuracy. © Bharati Vidyapeeth's Institute of Computer Applications and Management 2020.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial intelligence; COVID-19; Ensemble; Imperative; Machine learning
Year: 2020 PMID: 32838125 PMCID: PMC7325639 DOI: 10.1007/s41870-020-00495-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Inf Technol ISSN: 2511-2104
Fig. 1Worldwide coronavirus as of 10th April 2020
Fig. 2Methodology
Fig. 3Clinical report length
Fig. 4Different classed with their report length
Fig. 5Preprocessed data set
Fig. 6Features are chosen/selected for classification
Comparative analysis of traditional machine learning algorithms
| Algorithm | Precision | Recall | F1 score | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logistic regression | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 96.2 |
| Multinomial Naïve Bayesian | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 96.2 |
| Support vector machine | 0.82 | 0.91 | 0.86 | 90.6 |
| Decision tree | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 92.5 |
Shows the comparative analysis of classical as well as ensemble machine learning algorithms
| Algorithm | Precision | Recall | F1 score | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logistic regression | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 96.2 |
| Multinomial Naïve Bayesian | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 96.2 |
| Support vector machine | 0.82 | 0.91 | 0.86 | 90.6 |
| Decision tree | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 92.5 |
| Bagging | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 92.5 |
| Adaboost | 0.85 | 0.91 | 0.88 | 90.6 |
| Random forest | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 94.3 |
| Stochastic gradient boosting | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 94.3 |
Fig. 7Comparative analysis of machine learning and ensemble learning algorithms