| Literature DB >> 33424118 |
Shalini Ramanathan1, Mohan Ramasundaram1.
Abstract
In every field of life, advanced technology has become a rapid outcome, particularly in the medical field. The recent epidemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has promptly become outbreaks to identify early action from suspected cases at the primary stage over the risk prediction. It is overbearing to progress a control system that will locate the coronavirus. At present, the confirmation of COVID-19 infection by the ideal standard test of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) by the extension of RNA viral, although it presents identified from deficiencies of long reversal time to generate results in 2-4 h of corona with a necessity of certified laboratories. In this proposed system, a machine learning (ML) algorithm is used to classify the textual clinical report into four classes by using the textual data mining method. The algorithm of the ensemble ML classifier has performed feature extraction using the advanced techniques of term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF/IDF) which is an effective information retrieval technique from the corona dataset. Humans get infected by coronaviruses in three ways: first, mild respiratory disease which is globally pandemic, and human coronaviruses are caused by HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, and HCoV-229E; second, the zoonotic Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV); and finally, higher case casualty rate defined as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV). By using the machine learning techniques, the three-way COVID-19 stages are classified by the extraction of the feature using the data retrieval process. The TF/IDF is used to measure and evaluate statistically the text data mining of COVID-19 patient's record list for classification and prediction of the coronavirus. This study established the feasibility of techniques to analyze blood tests and machine learning as an alternative to rRT-PCR for detecting the category of COVID-19-positive patients.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Classification; Feature extraction; Machine learning; RT-PCR test; TF-IDF; Text data mining
Year: 2021 PMID: 33424118 PMCID: PMC7781398 DOI: 10.1007/s11227-020-03586-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Supercomput ISSN: 0920-8542 Impact factor: 2.474
Fig. 1Proposed block diagram
Fig. 2COVID-19 rRT-PCR molecular test
Fig. 3Overall proposed methodology
Proposed specimen type with temperature
| Type of specimen | Materials collection | Storage temperature | Recommended temperature for shipment according to expected shipment time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab | Dacron or polyester flocked swabs | 2–8 °C | 2–8 °C if ≤ 5 days –70 °C (dry ice) if > 5 days |
Fig. 4COVID-19 stages classification
COVID-19 testing from rRT-PCR dataset for feature extraction
| Feature data type | Data type |
|---|---|
| Gender categorical | Categorical |
| Age numerical (discrete) | Numerical (discrete) |
| Leukocytes (WBC) numerical (continuous) | Numerical (continuous) |
| C-reactive protein (CRP) numerical (continuous) | Numerical (continuous) |
| Platelets numerical (continuous) | Numerical (continuous) |
| Transaminases (ALT) numerical (continuous) | Numerical (continuous) |
| Transaminases (AST) numerical (continuous) | Numerical (continuous) |
| Gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) numerical (continuous) | Numerical (continuous) |
| Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) numerical (continuous) | Numerical (continuous) |
| Monocytes numerical (continuous) | Numerical (continuous) |
| Lymphocytes numerical (continuous) | Numerical (continuous) |
| Neutrophils numerical (continuous) | Numerical (continuous) |
| Basophils numerical (continuous) | Numerical (continuous) |
| Eosinophils numerical (continuous) | Numerical (continuous) |
| Swab categorical | Categorical |
Performance analysis of the proposed and existing machine learning algorithms
| Parameters | TF-IDF (%) | SVM (%) | Artificial intelligence (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 93 | 73 | 81.5 |
| Specificity | 90 | 78.8 | 74.9 |
| Accuracy | 98.4 | 63.4 | 74 |
Fig. 5Comparison of statistical parameters
Fig. 6The accuracy of the training model
Fig. 7The loss of the training model
Fig. 8Classification of COVID-19 stages