| Literature DB >> 35035476 |
Fang Liu1, Xiaoli Liu2, Changyou Yin1, Hongrong Wang3.
Abstract
Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) indicates an issue in the digestive system. Blood can be found in feces or vomiting; however, it is not always visible, even if it makes the stool appear darkish or muddy. The bleeding can range in harshness from light to severe and can be dangerous. It is advised that nursing value analysis and risk assessment of patients with GIB is essential, but existing risk assessment techniques function inconsistently. Machine learning (ML) has the potential to increase risk evaluation. For evaluating risk in patients with GIB, scoring techniques are ineffective; a machine learning method would help. As a result, we present а unique machine learning-based nursing value analysis and risk assessment framework in this research to construct a model to evaluate the risk of hospital-based interventions or mortality in individuals with GIB and make a comparison to that of other rating systems. Initially, the dataset is collected, and preprocessing is done. Feature extraction is done using local binary patterns (LBP). Classification is performed using a fuzzy support vector machine (FSVM) classifier. For risk assessment and nursing value analysis, machine learning-based prediction using a multiagent reinforcement algorithm is employed. For improving the performance of the proposed system, we use spider monkey optimization (SMO) algorithm. The performance metrics like classification accuracy, area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and precision are analyzed and compared with the traditional approaches. In individuals with GIB, the suggested technique had a good-excellent prognostic efficacy, and it outperformed other traditional models.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35035476 PMCID: PMC8758331 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7874751
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract ISSN: 1687-6121 Impact factor: 2.260
Figure 1Flow of the proposed method.
Figure 2
Figure 3Comparison of classification metrics for the existing and proposed method.
Figure 4Comparison of AUROC and AUC metrics for the existing and proposed method.
Figure 5Comparison of specificity and sensitivity for the existing and proposed method.