| Literature DB >> 35028114 |
Muhammad Bilal Butt1, Majed Alfayad2, Shazia Saqib1, M A Khan3, Munir Ahmad4, Muhammad Adnan Khan5, Nouh Sabri Elmitwally6,7.
Abstract
Hepatitis C is a prevalent disease in the world. Around 3 to 4 million new cases of Hepatitis C are reported every year across the globe. Effective, timely prediction of the disease can help people know about their Stage of Hepatitis C. To identify the Stage of disease, various noninvasive serum biochemical markers and clinical information of the patients have been used. Machine learning techniques have been an effective alternative tool for determining the Stage of this chronic disease of the liver to prevent biopsy side effects. In this study, an Intelligent Hepatitis C Stage Diagnosis System (IHSDS) empowered with machine learning is presented to predict the Stage of Hepatitis C in a human using Artificial Neural Network (ANN). The dataset obtained from the UCI machine learning repository contains 29 features, out of which the 19 most reverent are selected to conduct the study; 70% of the dataset is used for training and 30% for validation purposes. The precision value is compared with the proposed IHSDS with previously presented models. The proposed IHSDS has achieved 98.89% precision during training and 94.44% precision during validation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35028114 PMCID: PMC8748759 DOI: 10.1155/2021/8062410
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Symptoms of chronic Hepatitis C.
| Symptoms | |
|---|---|
| Fever | Vomiting |
| Fatigue | Headache |
| Jaundice | Bone ache |
| Weight loss | Epigastric pain |
Stage of Hepatitis C.
| Stage 0 | Stage 1 | Stage 2 | Stage 3 | Stage 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No fibrosis | Mild fibrosis exclusive of scarring walls | Mild-to-moderate fibrosis inclusive of scarring walls | Spreading of bridged scarring to various liver parts but no cirrhosis | Severe cirrhosis or scarring |
Figure 1Proposed Intelligent Hepatitis C Stage Diagnosis System (IHSDS) empowered with machine learning.
Detailed description of dataset.
| Sr. no. | Attribute | Value range | Interpretation | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Age | 32–61 | Age of patient | Predictive |
| 2 | Gender | 1–2 | Female = 2, male = 1 | Predictive |
| 3 | BMI | 22–35 | Weight of patient | Predictive |
| 4 | Fever | 1–2 | Yes = 2, no = 1 | Predictive |
| 5 | Nausea | 1–2 | Yes = 2, no = 1 | Predictive |
| 6 | Headache | 1–2 | Yes = 2, no = 1 | Predictive |
| 7 | Fatigue | 1–2 | Yes = 2, no = 1 | Predictive |
| 8 | Jaundice | 1–2 | Yes = 2, no = 1 | Predictive |
| 9 | Epigastric pain | 1–2 | Yes = 2, no = 1 | Predictive |
| 10 | WBC | 2991–12101 | WBC count | Predictive |
| 11 | RBC | 3816422–5018451 | RBC count | Predictive |
| 12 | HGB | 10–15 | HGB level | Predictive |
| 13 | Plat. | 9303–226464 | Plat. count | Predictive |
| 14 | AST | 39–128 | AST level (1st week) | Predictive |
| 15 | ALT 1 | 39–128 | ALT level (1st week) | Predictive |
| 16 | ALT 4 | 39–128 | ALT level (4th week) | Predictive |
| 17 | RNA 1 | 11–1201086 | RNA count (1st week) | Predictive |
| 18 | RNA 4 | 5–1201715 | RNA count (4th week) | Predictive |
| 19 | Histological staging | 1–4 | Stage | Class |
Confusion matrix for the proposed IHSDS during training.
| Proposed IHSDS model (70% of the dataset in training) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Predicted output (Ƥ0, Ƥ1, Ƥ2, Ƥ3) | |||
| Actual output ( | Ƥ0 (Stage I) | Ƥ1 (Stage II) | Ƥ2 (Stage III) | Ƥ3 (Stage IV) |
| Input | ||||
|
| 159 | 28 | 15 | 16 |
|
| 29 | 182 | 17 | 21 |
|
| 19 | 13 | 200 | 16 |
|
| 17 | 18 | 25 | 193 |
Confusion matrix for the proposed IHSDS during validation.
| Proposed IHSDS model (30% of the dataset in validation) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Predicted output (Ƥ0, Ƥ1, Ƥ2, Ƥ3) | |||
| Actual output ( | Ƥ0 (Stage I) | Ƥ1 (Stage II) | Ƥ2 (Stage III) | Ƥ3 (Stage IV) |
| Input | ||||
|
| 30 | 25 | 16 | 16 |
|
| 15 | 23 | 34 | 30 |
|
| 26 | 16 | 35 | 36 |
|
| 24 | 21 | 36 | 34 |
Performance evaluation of the proposed IHSDS during training and validation.
| Samples [#] | Precision (%) | Miss rate (%) | MSE (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed IHSDS | Training | 969 | 98.89 | 1.11 | 3.63917 × 10−3 |
| Validation | 416 | 94.44 | 5.56 | 3.22580 × 10−2 | |
Comparison of the proposed model with previously presented models using validation precision.
| Literature | Dataset description | Precision (%) | Miss rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extreme Gradient Boosting [ | HCV Egyptian cohort dataset (1385 samples of 6 features are used) | 81.00 | 19.00 |
| Random Forest [ | HCV dataset by Clinical Research Committee of Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University (920 samples of 9 features are used) | 83.00 | 17.00 |
| Support Vector Machine (SVM) with linear kernel [ | 18 liver biopsy images of the trichrome (TC) stained slides | 85.60 | 14.40 |
| Random Forest [ | Dataset of children attending hospital outpatient clinic (166 samples of 14 features are used) | 90.30 | 9.70 |
| Proposed IHSDS | HCV Egyptian cohort dataset (1385 samples of 18 features are used) | 94.44 | 5.56 |