| Literature DB >> 33390874 |
Lakshita Aggarwal1, Puneet Goswami1, Shelly Sachdeva2.
Abstract
COVID-19 is a buzz word nowadays. The deadly virus that started in China has spread worldwide. The fundamental principle is "if the disease can travel faster information has to travel even faster". The sequence of events reveals the upheaval need to strengthen the ability of the early warning system, risk reduction, and management of national and global risks. Digital contact tracing apps like Aarogya setu (India) and Pan-European privacy preserving proximity tracing (German) has somehow helped but they are more effective in the initial stage and less relevant in the community spread phase. Thus, there is a need to devise a Decision Support System (DSS) based on machine learning algorithms. In this paper, we have attempted to propose an Additive Utility Assumption Approach for Criterion Comparison in Multi-criterion Intelligent Decision Support system for COVID-19. The dataset of Covid-19 has been taken from government link for validating the results. In this paper, an additive utility assumption-based approach for multi-criterion decision support system (MCDSS) with an accurate prediction of identified risk factors on certain well-defined input parameters is proposed and validated empirically using the standard SEIR model approach (Susceptible, Exposed, Infected and Recovered). The results includes comparative analysis in tabular form with already existing approaches to illustrate the potential of the proposed approach including the parameters such as Precision, Recall and F-Score. Other advanced parameters such as, MCC (Matthews Correlation Coefficient), ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristics) and PRC (Precision Recall) have also been considered for validation and the graphs are illustrated using Jupyter notebook. The statistical analysis of the most affected top eight states of India is undertaken effectively using the Weka software tool and IBM Cognos software to correctly predict the outbreak of pandemic situation due to Covid-19. Finally, the article has immense potential to contribute to the COVID-19 situation and may prove to be instrumental in propelling the research interest of researchers and providing some useful insights for the current pandemic situation.Entities:
Keywords: Covid-19; Epidemiology; Learning method; Machine learning; Multi-criterion Intelligent Decision Support system
Year: 2020 PMID: 33390874 PMCID: PMC7771316 DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.107056
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Soft Comput ISSN: 1568-4946 Impact factor: 6.725
Comparative analysis.
| S.No. | Parameters | Hu et al. | Lixiang et al. | Fairoza et al. | Palash et al. | Samrat et al. | Vinay et al. | Proposed model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Study Domain | Retro Analysis | Infectious disease modeling | Prediction model | Growth Models | Visually | Litearture | Multi-criterion decision support system |
| 2 | Medicinal treatment | ✓ | × | × | × | × | ✓ | ✓ |
| 3 | Country wise Analysis | × | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ |
| 4 | Nutritive value undertaken | × | ✓ | × | × | × | × | ✓ |
| 5 | Vaccines | × | ✓ | × | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 6 | Preventive Measures | × | × | × | ✓ | × | ✓ | ✓ |
Fig. 1Three and four length arrays.
Fig. 2The method used for calculating results.
Problem solving techniques.
| Method | Advantages | Disadvantages | Areas of application |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) | Able to compensate among criterion’s and it is ready to take decisions intuitively. | Estimates do not reflect the real situations result. | Financial management, water management and business. |
| Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) | Simple process is involved using, and programming and the number of steps remains the same irrespective of its attributes. | Difficult to weight and use of Euclidean distance relation judgments. | Engineering, manufacturing, business and marketing. |
| Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) | Easy to use, not much focus on data. | Problem due to interdependence between alternatives and criterion’s; which may lead to inconsistencies to the final results. | Performance type problems, public policy, strategy and planning related tasks. |
| Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) | Simple allowing for weight techniques; less effort by decision-makers. | Not a convenient procedure, not considering the framework. | Transportation and logistics, military, manufacturing and assembly problems. |
| Fuzzy Set Theory | Takes insufficient information, allowing for imprecise input. | Difficult to develop as it requires numerous simulations before use. | Engineering, Economics and management techniques, Biological and health care estimation of data. |
| Elimination at Choice Translating Reality (ELECTRE) | Considers all uncertain data vagueness into account. | Difficult to explain, causing strengths and weakness of alternatives not identified. | Energy, economics management and transportation problems. |
Fig. 3Block diagram of multi-criterion decision support system.
Fig. 4Flowchart demonstrating multi-criterion decision-making technique.
Fig. 5Analysis state wise.
Eight worst hit states due to COVID-19.
| States | Population (Cr | Confirmed | Recovered (k) | Deaths |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maharashtra | 11.42 | 1.2L | 59 | 5K |
| TamilNadu | 6.79 | 50K | 27 | 576 |
| Delhi | 1.9 | 47K | 17 | 2K |
| Gujarat | 6.27 | 25K | 17 | 2K |
| UttarPradesh | 20.42 | 15K | 9 | 435 |
| Rajasthan | 6.89 | 14K | 10 | 313 |
| WestBengal | 9.03 | 12K | 7 | 506 |
| MadhyaPradesh | 7.33 | 11K | 8 | 482 |
Fig. 6Weka analysis.
Different classifiers used to analyze results.
| Classifier | Figure | Attributes | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| TreesJ48Graph | 6 | Default | Uses pruning |
| Logistics | 7 | Default | Function logistics |
| Decision table | 8 | Default | Rules decision table |
| Zero R | 11 | Default | Rules zero R |
Fig. 7Statistical analysis.
Statistical analysis.
| Parameters | Mean | StandardDeviation |
|---|---|---|
| Total population | 8.7562 | 5.0718 |
| Confirmed cases | 21.9 | 16.5248 |
| Recovered cases | 19.25 | 16.2692 |
| Deaths | 290.125 | 232.9117 |
Fig. 8Relative instances.
Fig. 9Chart showing recovery rate.
Fig. 10Analysis of all states on three different parameters.
Fig. 11Detailed accuracy and matrix.
Result comparison of different learning methods [26], [30], [31].
| Parameters | TreesJ48 | Logistics | Decision table | ZeroR | Proposed paper values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | 0.629 | 0.5 | 0.375 | 0.423 | 0.66 |
| Recall | 0.643 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 1.00 |
| F-measure | 0.632 | 0.44 | 0.429 | 0.5 | 0.795 |
Result comparison of different parameters.
| Parameters | CaseI | CaseII | CaseIII |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ROC | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| PRC | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.551 |
Fig. 12SEIFR model.
Fig. 13Flow diagram of the proposed SEIFR model.
Fig. 14Sequential phase.
Fig. 15Map view of worst hit state.
Fig. 16Predictive driver analysis.
Predictive analysis of number of patients out of total population.
| States | Confirmed cases (total population) |
|---|---|
| Maharashtra | 65,02,066 |
| TamilNadu | 28,89,463 |
| Delhi | 27,10,367 |
| Gujarat | 14,37,808 |
| UttarPradesh | 8,72,302 |
| Rajasthan | 7,81,856 |
| WestBengal | 6,47,832 |
| MadhyaPradesh | 6,54,873 |
Fig. 17Prediction analysis of worst eight hit states.
Fig. 18Libraries used for EDA.
Fig. 20Initial parameter.
Fig. 21Plotting graph of SEIFR model.
Fig. 22Graph depicting the relationship between Susceptible, Exposed, Infected & Recovered rate.
Fig. 19Definition of SEIFR model.