| Literature DB >> 34858564 |
Abstract
Various factors influencing postoperative incisional infection in gynecologic tumors were analyzed, and the value of quality nursing intervention was studied. In this study, 74 surgically treated gynecologic tumor patients were randomly selected from within the hospital as the study population and were divided into study and control groups. For this purpose, the whole-group random sampling method is utilized to compare the postoperative incisional infection rates of the two groups, analyze their influencing factors, and develop quality nursing interventions. In this paper, a breast cancer diagnosis prediction model was developed by combining the self-attentive mechanism. The preprocessing work such as data quantification and normalization was performed first which is followed by adding the preprocessed data to the self-attentive mechanism. This model has solved the problem that recurrent neural networks (RNNs) could not extract and calculate the features at the same time. Likewise, it has solved the drawback that the RNN could not consider global features at the same time when extracting the features, and then, the feature matrix extracted by the self-attentive mechanism was added to the adaptive neural network. The adaptive neural network model for breast cancer diagnosis prediction was constructed and, finally, relevant parameters of the adaptive neural network model were adjusted according to different tasks to make the model performance optimal. Experimental results showed that the postoperative incision infection rate of patients in the study group was 2.70%, which was significantly lower than that of 21.62% in the control group (P < 0.05). Likewise, operation time, operation method, hospitalization time, preoperative fever, diabetes mellitus, and anemia were the main influencing factors of postoperative incision infection in women with gynecologic tumors. The time of surgery, surgical method, long hospital stay, preoperative fever, diabetes, and anemia are the main factors that lead to postoperative incisional infection in female gynecologic tumor patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34858564 PMCID: PMC8632385 DOI: 10.1155/2021/7956184
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Process of building a predictive model for disease diagnosis.
Figure 2Diagram of the construction process of the proposed method.
Figure 3Encoder-decoder framework diagram.
Figure 4Attention's schematic.
Algorithm 1The proposed algorithm.
Figure 5Diagram of the proposed approach.
Confusion matrix.
| Actual value/estimate | 1 | 0 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | TP | FN |
| 2 | FP | TN |
Figure 6ROC curve.
Comparison of model accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 values (DataSet1).
| RNN | CNN | LSTM | Our method | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 0.985 | 0.99 | 0.985 | 0.99 |
| Precise | 0.993 | 0.985 | 0.993 | 0.993 |
| Recall | 0.993 | 1.0 | 0.993 | 0.993 |
| F1 | 0.989 | 0.993 | 0.989 | 0.993 |
Figure 7Adaptive neural network parameter selection.
Comparison of model accuracy, recall, and F1 values (DataSet2).
| RNN | CNN | LSTM | Our method | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precise | 1.0 | 0.868 | 0.868 | 0.884 |
| Recall | 0.924 | 0.967 | 0.967 | 1.0 |
| F1 | 0.895 | 0.915 | 0.924 |
Figure 8ROC curve (Dataset1).
Figure 9Model accuracy comparison.
Comparison of postoperative incisional infection rates between two groups of patients.
| Group | N | Number of infections ( | Infection rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Research group | 37 | 1 | 2.70 |
| Control group | 37 | 8 | 21.62 |
|
| 4.266 | 5.362 | |
|
| 0.014 | 0.023 |
Multifactor logistic regression analysis of factors influencing postoperative incisional infection in two groups of patients.
| Influence factor |
| Wald |
| OR value | 95% confidence interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operation time | 1.705 | 18.744 | 0.002 | 6.587 | 0.837–1.273 |
| Operation mode | 2.328 | 14.325 | 0.005 | 15.730 | 0.764–1.057 |
| Length of stay | 1.509 | 16.099 | 0.004 | 5.710 | 0.780–0.982 |
| Preoperative fever | 1.337 | 17.394 | 0.003 | 5.998 | 0.879–1.259 |
| Diabetes | 2.427 | 22.029 | 0.001 | 17.881 | 0.739–1.154 |
| Anemia | 1.326 | 15.527 | 0.004 | 5.003 | 0.784–1.085 |