| Literature DB >> 34924675 |
Aditya Gupta1, Vibha Jain2, Amritpal Singh1.
Abstract
The recent outbreak of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has resulted in healthcare crises across the globe. Moreover, the persistent and prolonged complications of post-COVID-19 or long COVID are also putting extreme pressure on hospital authorities due to the constrained healthcare resources. Out of many long-lasting post-COVID-19 complications, heart disease has been realized as the most common among COVID-19 survivors. The motivation behind this research is the limited availability of the post-COVID-19 dataset. In the current research, data related to post-COVID complications are collected by personally contacting the previously infected COVID-19 patients. The dataset is preprocessed to deal with missing values followed by oversampling to generate numerous instances, and model training. A binary classifier based on a stacking ensemble is modeled with deep neural networks for the prediction of heart diseases, post-COVID-19 infection. The proposed model is validated against other baseline techniques, such as decision trees, random forest, support vector machines, and artificial neural networks. Results show that the proposed technique outperforms other baseline techniques and achieves the highest accuracy of 93.23%. Moreover, the results of specificity (95.74%), precision (95.24%), and recall (92.05%) also prove the utility of the adopted approach in comparison to other techniques for the prediction of heart diseases. © Ohmsha, Ltd. and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2021.Entities:
Keywords: K-fold cross-validation; Machine learning; Post-COVID-19; Stacking ensemble
Year: 2021 PMID: 34924675 PMCID: PMC8669670 DOI: 10.1007/s00354-021-00144-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: New Gener Comput ISSN: 0288-3635 Impact factor: 1.180
Fig. 1Study area
Personal details of COVID-19 patients
| Personal details | |
|---|---|
| Parameters | Percentage |
| 15–25 y | 29 ( 16.11%) |
| 25–45 y | 108(60%) |
| > 45 y | 43 (23.88%) |
| Male | 78 (43.34%) |
| Female | 102 ( 56.67%) |
| < 18.5 (underweight) | 23 ( 12. 78%) |
| 18.5–25 (normal) | 89 ( 49.44%) |
| 25–30 (overweight) | 47 (26.11%) |
| > 30 (obese) | 21 (11.67%) |
| Pregnant | 2.30% |
| Non-pregnant | 97.70% |
| Ex-smoker | 146 (81.11%) |
| Smoker | 10 ( 5.55%) |
| Non-smoker | 22 ( 12.22%) |
| Diabetic | 14 (7.78%) |
| Non-diabetic | 164 (91.11%) |
| Hypertension | 5.30% |
| Asthma | 4.80% |
| Arthritis | 2.15% |
| Cardiac disease | 1.58% |
| None | 75.85% |
| Yes | 1.11% |
| No | 99.98% |
Details of COVID-19 statistics
| COVID-19 statistics | |
|---|---|
| Parameters | Percentage |
| Severity of disease | |
| Mild | 78.33% |
| Moderate | 13.33% |
| Severe | 8.34% |
| < 7 days | 22 (12.22%) |
| 7–15 days | 97(53.89%) |
| > 15 days | 61 (33.89%) |
| Yes | 32.22% |
| No | 61.67% |
| Fever | 79.44% |
| Cough | 64.44% |
| Anorexia | 46.11% |
| Dyspnea | 32.78% |
| Tiredness | 11.11% |
| Chest pain | 5.55% |
| Headache | 7.22% |
| Vomiting | 2.22% |
Details of post COVID-19 symptoms
| Post COVID-19 symptoms | |
|---|---|
| Parameters | Percentage |
| Fatigue | 72.77% |
| Cough | 25.55% |
| Dyspnea | 41.77% |
| Myalgia | 53.88% |
| Anxiety | 4.60% |
| Chest pain | 2.33% |
| Depression | 27.45% |
| Dementia | 28.60% |
| Headache | 29.45% |
| Hair loss | 20% |
| Sleep disorder | 34.44% |
| Blurred vision | 19.45% |
| Yes | 11.67% |
| No | 88.33% |
| Yes | 65.55% |
| No | 34.45% |
Heart disease dataset parameters
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Age | In years |
| Gender | Male/female |
| Chest pain | Typical angina/atypical angina/non-anginal pain/asymptotic |
| Resting blood pressure | in mm Hg |
| Serum cholesterol | In mg/dl |
| Fasting blood sugar | > 120 mg/dl |
| Resting electrocardiographic | Normal/having ST-T wave abnormality/left ventricular hypertrophy |
| Maximum heart achieved | In bpm |
| Exercise induced angina | Yes/no |
| ST depression | Depression |
| Peak exercise ST segment slope | Upsloping/flat/downsloping |
| Number of major vessels fluoroscopy | 0–3 |
| Thalassemia | Normal/fixed defect/reversible defect |
Fig. 2Stacking ensemble-based deep learning model
Parameters considered for proposed model
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Size of input layer | 14 |
| Size of output layer | 2 |
| Number of hidden layers | 3 |
| Learning rate | 0.01 |
| Activation function | ReLU |
| Optimizer | Adam |
| Number of epochs | 100 |
Fig. 3Tenfold cross-validation
Fig. 4Training results of stacking ensemble using tenfold cross-validation
Fig. 5A heatmap of correlation between different features
Validation and testing results of stacking ensemble with tenfold cross validation
| Training | Testing | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fold no. | Accuracy | Specificity | Precision | Recall | Accuracy | Specificity | Precision | Recall |
| 1 | 0.9245 | 0.9318 | 0.9499 | 0.9188 | 0.9566 | 0.9454 | 0.9527 | 0.9227 |
| 2 | 0.9329 | 0.9615 | 0.9556 | 0.9187 | 0.9445 | 0.9834 | 0.9781 | 0.9166 |
| 3 | 0.9147 | 0.9236 | 0.9475 | 0.9085 | 0.9366 | 0.9258 | 0.9471 | 0.9255 |
| 4 | 0.9289 | 0.9456 | 0.9464 | 0.9087 | 0.9482 | 0.9643 | 0.9515 | 0.9128 |
| 5 | 0.9319 | 0.9381 | 0.9545 | 0.9149 | 0.8468 | 0.9509 | 0.9668 | 0.9249 |
| 6 | 0.9347 | 0.9599 | 0.9499 | 0.9187 | 0.9588 | 0.9591 | 0.9454 | 0.9135 |
| 7 | 0.9429 | 0.9583 | 0.9479 | 0.9083 | 0.9399 | 0.9847 | 0.9465 | 0.9109 |
| 8 | 0.9268 | 0.9263 | 0.9599 | 0.9047 | 0.9311 | 0.9457 | 0.9217 | 0.9287 |
| 9 | 0.9289 | 0.9597 | 0.9425 | 0.9176 | 0.9155 | 0.9593 | 0.9484 | 0.9147 |
| 10 | 0.945 | 0.9766 | 0.9597 | 0.9192 | 0.9446 | 0.9557 | 0.9666 | 0.9348 |
| 0.9311 | 0.9481 | 0.9514 | 0.9138 | 0.9323 | 0.9574 | 0.95248 | 0.9205 | |
Performance comparison of different machine learning algorithms
| Algorithm | Accuracy | Specificity | Precision | Recall | RMSE | MAE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision tree | 0.7391 | 0.8149 | 0.7481 | 0.7236 | 0.41 | 0.31 |
| Random forest | 0.7366 | 0.8367 | 0.7761 | 0.7748 | 0.43 | 0.39 |
| SVM | 0.8149 | 0.8755 | 0.8754 | 0.8112 | 0.51 | 0.25 |
| ANN | 0.8988 | 0.9041 | 0.9355 | 0.8565 | 0.4 | 0.27 |
| Proposed | 0.9323 | 0.9574 | 0.9524 | 0.9205 | 0.32 | 0.23 |
Fig. 6Comparative analysis