| Literature DB >> 35052249 |
Pratiyush Guleria1, Shakeel Ahmed2, Abdulaziz Alhumam2, Parvathaneni Naga Srinivasu3.
Abstract
Machine Learning methods can play a key role in predicting the spread of respiratory infection with the help of predictive analytics. Machine Learning techniques help mine data to better estimate and predict the COVID-19 infection status. A Fine-tuned Ensemble Classification approach for predicting the death and cure rates of patients from infection using Machine Learning techniques has been proposed for different states of India. The proposed classification model is applied to the recent COVID-19 dataset for India, and a performance evaluation of various state-of-the-art classifiers to the proposed model is performed. The classifiers forecasted the patients' infection status in different regions to better plan resources and response care systems. The appropriate classification of the output class based on the extracted input features is essential to achieve accurate results of classifiers. The experimental outcome exhibits that the proposed Hybrid Model reached a maximum F1-score of 94% compared to Ensembles and other classifiers like Support Vector Machine, Decision Trees, and Gaussian Naïve Bayes on a dataset of 5004 instances through 10-fold cross-validation for predicting the right class. The feasibility of automated prediction for COVID-19 infection cure and death rates in the Indian states was demonstrated.Entities:
Keywords: classifier; decision making; disease prediction; fine-tuned ensemble classification; forecasting; machine learning models
Year: 2022 PMID: 35052249 PMCID: PMC8775063 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10010085
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
The various Machine Learning models in COVID-19 prediction.
| Reference | Technique Followed | Work Done |
|---|---|---|
| [ | Decision Tree and Random Forest Algorithms | Classifying ECG signals |
| [ | Exploratory Data Analysis | Exploratory data analysis and visualization are performed for virus-infected, recovered, and death cases through classification techniques |
| [ | Linear Regression, Multilayer Perceptron, and Vector Auto Regression Methods | Forecast the pandemic |
| [ | Digital Signal Processing | Classification of the COVID-19 genomes analysis performed with precision |
| [ | AI Framework | A mobile phone-based survey was conducted in provinces that are under quarantine |
| [ | Big Data Analytics | The study discussed the response to COVID-19 in Taiwan |
| [ | Fuzzy Inference System And Multi-Layered Perceptron | Predicting infection and mortality rates due to COVID-19 for Hungary |
| [ | Fuzzy Classifier | EEG Signal Classification is done |
| [ | Random Forest | The outbreak of African fever-like diseases was predicted successfully. |
| [ | Comparative Evaluation of Time Series Models | Forecasting of influenza diseases outbreak in Iran |
| [ | Deep AlexNet Model | Identifying fever hotspots and diseases outbreak predictions associated with climatic factors in Taiwan |
| [ | Artificial Neural Network | Predicted oyster norovirus outbreaks along the Gulf of Mexico coast |
| [ | Data Mining approach | Predicted dengue outbreaks in Bangladesh |
| [ | Bayesian Network | Predicted dengue outbreaks in the Malaysian region |
| [ | KNN and SVM techniques | Forecast of diabetic patients |
| [ | Backpropagation algorithm implemented in | The study has predicted diabetic diseases. The results generated in the study are compared with J48, SVM, and Naive Bayes |
| [ | Random forest classifier | Predicted Parkinson’s disease |
| [ | Mathematical Modelling | Predicted the critical condition of patients suffering from COVID-19 in Wuhan |
| [ | Support Vector Machine | Predicted the survival of patients suffering from COVID |
| [ | XGBoost, Multioutput Regressor | Forecasting COVID-19 infection cases in provinces of South Korea |
| [ | Convolution Neural Network (CNN) and Transfer Learning Approach | The technique implemented for detecting the COVID-19 from the X-ray images |
| [ | Machine Learning and Deep Learning techniques | A systematic review was conducted in the study to detect COVID-19 |
| [ | Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), DTree Classifier and BayesNet | A study was conducted to identify the best classification model to classify COVID-19 by using significant weather features chosen by the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) feature selection method |
| [ | Artificial Neural Network, SVM, and Random Forest | Predicted the severity of COVID-19-infected patients using ML methods |
| [ | Deep Learning (DL) | Deep Learning-based model for predicting the mortality rates in COVID-19 patients |
| [ | Ensemble-based Deep Neural Network | Predicted the in-hospital mortality due to COVID-19 using routine blood samples |
| [ | XGBoost | XGBoost used as a mortality risk tool for hospitalized COVID-19 cases |
| [ | LR, SVM, KNN, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting | Predicted the mortality cases in South Korea using classification techniques |
Figure 1Workflow of classification models for predictive analytics.
Sample instances of the COVID-19 dataset.
| Sno | Date | Time | State/ | Confirmed | Confirmed | Cured | Deaths | Confirmed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 22 March 2020 | 6:00 p.m. | Delhi | 28 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 29 |
| 2 | 22 March 2020 | 6:00 p.m. | Gujarat | 18 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 18 |
| 3 | 22 March 2020 | 6:00 p.m. | Haryana | 7 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 21 |
| 4 | 8 April 2020 | 5:00 p.m. | Karnataka | - | - | 25 | 4 | 175 |
| 5 | 1 August 2020 | 8:00 a.m. | Assam | - | - | 30,357 | 98 | 40,269 |
| 6 | 22 March 2020 | 6:00 p.m. | Punjab | 21 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 21 |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 5004 | 31 May 2021 | 8:00 a.m. | Mizoram | - | - | 9015 | 38 | 12,087 |
Figure 2Workflow of the Fine-tuned Ensemble Classification model.
Figure 3Features selected for the Predictor and Outcome variables.
Performances of various classifiers in COVID-19 prediction.
| Classifier | Correctly Classified Instances | Incorrectly Classified Instances | Mean Absolute Error | Root Mean Squared Error | Relative Absolute Error | Root relative Squared Error | Accuracy of Correctly Classified Instances | Time Is Taken to Build the Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision Trees | 4422 | 582 | 0.0072 | 0.0634 | 13.76% | 39.12% | 88.37% | 0.28 |
| Naïve Bayes | 3119 | 1885 | 0.0231 | 0.1191 | 43.95% | 73.45% | 62.33% | 0.02 |
| SVM | 4658 | 346 | 0.0037 | 0.0611 | 7.11% | 37.71% | 93.09% | 128.61 |
| Bagging | 897 | 4107 | 0.0465 | 0.1631 | 88.55% | 100.59% | 17.92% | 0.47 |
| AdaBoost | 262 | 4742 | 0.0511 | 0.1598 | 97.21% | 98.60% | 5.23% | 0.05 |
| Random Forest | 1348 | 3656 | 0.0464 | 0.157 | 88.26% | 96.81% | 26.93% | 3.59 |
| Proposed Model | 4704 | 300 | 0.0363 | 0.1145 | 69.05% | 70.62% | 94.00% | 1.49 |
Comparison of relative studies using ML models with the proposed Fine-tuned Ensemble method.
| Reference | Technique | Dataset Size | Country | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | XGBoost | 3062 | USA and Southern Europe | Accuracy: 0.85, NPV: 0.93 |
| [ | SVM(Linear) | 10,237 | Korea | Accuracy: 0.91 |
| [ | LR | 2307 | Madrid | Sensitivity: 0.81, Specificity: 0.81 |
| [ | Random Forest | 567 | - | Accuracy: 0.655 |
| [ | Multilayer Perceptron | 302 | Nigeria | Accuracy: 0.85 |
| [ | Random Forest | 341 | Itlay | ROC:0.84 |
| [ | Decision Trees | - | Portugal | Sensitivity: 0.95, Accuracy: 0.9, Specificity: 0.86 |
| [ | ANN | - | - | Accuracy: 0.89 |
| Proposed Model | 5004 | India | Accuracy: 0.94, ROC: 97.8, F-Measure: 0.94 |
Figure 4(a) Correct Predictions by Decision Tree ‘Cured’ vs. ‘Deaths’. (b) Incorrect Prediction by Decision Tree ‘Cured’ vs. ‘Death’.
Figure 5(a) Correct Predictions by Gaussian Naïve Bayes ‘Cured’ vs. ‘Deaths’. (b) Incorrect Predictions by Gaussian Naïve Bayes ‘Cured’ vs. ‘Deaths’.
Figure 6(a) Correct Predictions by SVM Model ‘Cured’ vs. ‘Deaths’. (b) Incorrect Predictions by SVM Model ‘Cured’ vs. ‘Deaths.
Figure 7(a) Correct Predictions by Decision Tree ‘Cured’ vs. ‘Confirmed’. (b) Incorrect Predictions by Decision Tree ‘Cured’ vs. ‘Confirmed’.
Figure 8(a) Correct Predictions by Gaussian Naïve Model ‘Cured’ vs. ‘Confirmed’. (b) Incorrect Predictions by Gaussian Naïve Model ‘Cured’ vs. ‘Confirmed’.
Figure 9(a) Correct Predictions by SVM Model ‘Cured’ vs. ‘Confirmed’. (b) Incorrect Predictions by SVM Model ‘Cured’ vs. ‘Confirmed’.
Detailed Accuracy (TP, FP Rate) for each class Using Machine Learning Classifiers.
| TP Rate | FP Rate | Class | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision Tree | Naïve Byes | SVM | AdaBoost | Random Forest | Bagging | Hybrid Model | Decision Tree | Naïve Byes | SVM | AdaBoost | Random Forest | Bagging | Proposed Model | State/Union Territory |
| 1 | 0.91 | 1 | 0.094 | 0 | 0 | 0.971 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.055 | 0.008 | 0.016 | 0 | Andhra Pradesh |
| 1 | 0.957 | 1 | 0.295 | 0.993 | 0.719 | 0.993 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.127 | 0.001 | 0.016 | 0 | Andaman and Nicobar Islands |
| 1 | 0.978 | 1 | 0.094 | 0.993 | 0.525 | 0.971 | 0 | 0 | 0.008 | 0.043 | 0.003 | 0.01 | 0.002 | Arunachal Pradesh |
| 0.978 | 0.914 | 1 | 0.094 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.978 | 0 | 0.01 | 0 | 0.055 | 0.024 | 0.022 | 0.001 | Assam |
| 0.82 | 0.043 | 1 | 0.094 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.878 | 0.001 | 0.005 | 0 | 0.055 | 0.03 | 0.037 | 0.002 | Bihar |
| 0.986 | 0.734 | 0.683 | 0.094 | 0.259 | 0.259 | 0.957 | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.002 | 0.043 | 0.004 | 0.012 | 0.002 | Chandigarh |
| 0.072 | 0.029 | 0.799 | 0.094 | 0 | 0 | 0.863 | 0.001 | 0.014 | 0.006 | 0.055 | 0.014 | 0.031 | 0.003 | Chhattisgarh |
| 0.993 | 0.935 | 1 | 0.094 | 0.986 | 0.626 | 1 | 0 | 0.005 | 0 | 0.042 | 0 | 0.011 | 0.001 | Dadra & Nagar Haveli |
| 0.856 | 0 | 0.914 | 0.094 | 0 | 0 | 0.928 | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.056 | 0.019 | 0.021 | 0.003 | Delhi |
| 0.885 | 0.165 | 0.633 | 0.094 | 0.029 | 0.094 | 0.899 | 0.002 | 0.026 | 0.001 | 0.042 | 0.027 | 0.026 | 0.002 | Goa |
| 0 | 0.029 | 0.906 | 0.094 | 0 | 0 | 0.914 | 0 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.055 | 0.053 | 0.05 | 0.003 | Gujarat |
| 0.77 | 0.633 | 0.978 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.878 | 0 | 0.068 | 0.001 | 0 | 0.047 | 0.04 | 0.004 | Haryana |
| 0.95 | 0.065 | 0.871 | 0 | 0 | 0.036 | 0.928 | 0.003 | 0.01 | 0.009 | 0 | 0.039 | 0.036 | 0.004 | Himachal Pradesh |
| 0.993 | 0.892 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.942 | 0.004 | 0.009 | 0 | 0 | 0.031 | 0.034 | 0.004 | Jammu& Kashmir |
| 0.82 | 0.029 | 0.993 | 0.094 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.892 | 0 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.055 | 0.032 | 0.034 | 0.001 | Jharkhand |
| 0.835 | 0.151 | 0.669 | 0.094 | 0 | 0 | 0.957 | 0.003 | 0.014 | 0.004 | 0.055 | 0.067 | 0.049 | 0.001 | Karnataka |
| 1 | 0.993 | 1 | 0.094 | 0 | 0.014 | 0.986 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.055 | 0.036 | 0.034 | 0.001 | Kerala |
| 0.993 | 0.878 | 1 | 0.094 | 0.971 | 0.806 | 0.986 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.043 | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0 | Lakshadweep |
| 0.978 | 0.82 | 0.928 | 0.094 | 0.813 | 0.439 | 0.971 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0 | 0.042 | 0.003 | 0.015 | 0.001 | Ladakh |
| 0.986 | 0 | 0.77 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.842 | 0.064 | 0.027 | 0.005 | 0 | 0.018 | 0.023 | 0.004 | Madhya Pradesh |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.993 | 0 | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 0.002 | 0.006 | 0 | Maharashtra |
| 0.978 | 0.935 | 0.935 | 0 | 0.266 | 0.281 | 0.964 | 0 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0 | 0.031 | 0.027 | 0 | Manipur |
| 0.993 | 0.806 | 0.993 | 0.094 | 0.669 | 0.281 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.006 | 0.001 | 0.043 | 0.007 | 0.024 | 0.001 | Meghalaya |
| 0.986 | 0.95 | 0.986 | 0 | 0.978 | 0.576 | 0.986 | 0 | 0.002 | 0 | 0 | 0.001 | 0.012 | 0.001 | Mizoram |
| 0.964 | 0.899 | 0.993 | 0 | 0.899 | 0.432 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.006 | 0.001 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.023 | 0 | Nagaland |
| 0.993 | 0.878 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.957 | 0.002 | 0.004 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.027 | 0.001 | Odisha |
| 0.993 | 0.878 | 0.978 | 0 | 0.374 | 0.295 | 0.986 | 0 | 0.023 | 0.005 | 0 | 0.011 | 0.017 | 0 | Puducherry |
| 0.763 | 0.878 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.964 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 0.002 | 0.01 | 0.001 | Punjab |
| 0.791 | 0.036 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.871 | 0 | 0.009 | 0 | 0 | 0.058 | 0.044 | 0.003 | Rajasthan |
| 1 | 0.95 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.619 | 0.993 | 0 | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.006 | 0.002 | Sikkim |
| 0.849 | 0.806 | 0.964 | 0.094 | 0 | 0 | 0.878 | 0.012 | 0.032 | 0.009 | 0.055 | 0.013 | 0.016 | 0.004 | Tamil Nadu |
| 0.909 | 0.884 | 0.992 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.95 | 0.002 | 0.012 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.015 | 0.001 | Telangana |
| 0.993 | 0.928 | 1 | 0 | 0.338 | 0.273 | 0.986 | 0 | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 0.036 | 0.025 | 0 | Tripura |
| 0.935 | 0.547 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.129 | 0.094 | 0.892 | 0.001 | 0.025 | 0.001 | 0 | 0.002 | 0.006 | 0.001 | Uttarakhand |
| 0.871 | 0.036 | 0.719 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.906 | 0.014 | 0.007 | 0.002 | 0 | 0.048 | 0.037 | 0.003 | Uttar Pradesh |
| 0.899 | 0.871 | 0.871 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.892 | 0.001 | 0.05 | 0.005 | 0 | 0.025 | 0.027 | 0.001 | West Bengal |
| 0.778 | 0.889 | 0.889 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.889 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.002 | 0.001 | Telangana |
| 0.88 | 0.623 | 0.93 | 0.052 | 0.269 | 0.179 | 0.94 | 0.003 | 0.011 | 0.002 | 0.027 | 0.021 | 0.023 | 0.002 | Weighted Avg. |
Detailed Accuracy (Recall, F-Measure) for each class using Machine Learning Classifiers.
| Recall | F-Measure | Class | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision Tree | Naïve Byes | SVM | AdaBoost | Random Forest | Bagging | Proposed Hybrid Model | Decision Tree | Naïve Byes | SVM | AdaBoost | Random Forest | Bagging | Proposed Model | State/Union Territory |
| 1 | 0.914 | 1 | 0.094 | 0 | 0 | 0.971 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.062 | 0 | 0 | 0.985 | Andhra Pradesh |
| 1 | 0.957 | 1 | 0.295 | 0.993 | 0.719 | 0.993 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.103 | 0.986 | 0.631 | 0.996 | Andaman and Nicobar Islands |
| 1 | 0.978 | 1 | 0.094 | 0.993 | 0.525 | 0.971 | 0 | 0 | 0.008 | 0.072 | 0.942 | 0.564 | 0.954 | Arunachal Pradesh |
| 0.978 | 0.914 | 1 | 0.094 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.978 | 0 | 0.01 | 0 | 0.062 | 0 | 0.055 | 0.968 | Assam |
| 0.82 | 0.043 | 1 | 0.094 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.878 | 0.001 | 0.005 | 0 | 0.062 | 0 | 0.006 | 0.9 | Bihar |
| 0.986 | 0.734 | 0.683 | 0.094 | 0.259 | 0.259 | 0.957 | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.002 | 0.072 | 0.369 | 0.31 | 0.947 | Chandigarh |
| 0.072 | 0.029 | 0.799 | 0.094 | 0 | 0 | 0.863 | 0.001 | 0.014 | 0.006 | 0.062 | 0 | 0 | 0.879 | Chhattisgarh |
| 0.993 | 0.935 | 1 | 0.094 | 0.986 | 0.626 | 1 | 0 | 0.005 | 0 | 0.073 | 0.986 | 0.619 | 0.989 | Dadra & Nagar Haveli |
| 0.856 | 0 | 0.914 | 0.094 | 0 | 0 | 0.928 | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.061 | 0 | 0 | 0.912 | Delhi |
| 0.885 | 0.165 | 0.633 | 0.094 | 0.029 | 0.094 | 0.899 | 0.002 | 0.026 | 0.001 | 0.073 | 0.029 | 0.093 | 0.912 | Goa |
| 0 | 0.029 | 0.906 | 0.094 | 0 | 0 | 0.914 | 0 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.062 | 0 | 0 | 0.898 | Gujarat |
| 0.77 | 0.633 | 0.978 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.878 | 0 | 0.068 | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.868 | Haryana |
| 0.95 | 0.065 | 0.871 | 0 | 0 | 0.036 | 0.928 | 0.003 | 0.01 | 0.009 | 0 | 0 | 0.032 | 0.899 | Himachal Pradesh |
| 0.993 | 0.892 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.942 | 0.004 | 0.009 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.91 | Jammu& Kashmir |
| 0.82 | 0.029 | 0.993 | 0.094 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.892 | 0 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.062 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.919 | Jharkhand |
| 0.835 | 0.151 | 0.669 | 0.094 | 0 | 0 | 0.957 | 0.003 | 0.014 | 0.004 | 0.062 | 0 | 0 | 0.967 | Karnataka |
| 1 | 0.993 | 1 | 0.094 | 0 | 0.014 | 0.986 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.062 | 0 | 0.013 | 0.975 | Kerala |
| 0.993 | 0.878 | 1 | 0.094 | 0.971 | 0.806 | 0.986 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.072 | 0.975 | 0.797 | 0.993 | Lakshadweep |
| 0.978 | 0.82 | 0.928 | 0.094 | 0.813 | 0.439 | 0.971 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0 | 0.073 | 0.85 | 0.449 | 0.964 | Ladakh |
| 0.986 | 0 | 0.77 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.842 | 0.064 | 0.027 | 0.005 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.848 | Madhya Pradesh |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.993 | 0 | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.012 | 0.993 | Maharashtra |
| 0.978 | 0.935 | 0.935 | 0 | 0.266 | 0.281 | 0.964 | 0 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0 | 0.225 | 0.254 | 0.975 | Manipur |
| 0.993 | 0.806 | 0.993 | 0.094 | 0.669 | 0.281 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.006 | 0.001 | 0.072 | 0.705 | 0.264 | 0.96 | Meghalaya |
| 0.986 | 0.95 | 0.986 | 0 | 0.978 | 0.576 | 0.986 | 0 | 0.002 | 0 | 0 | 0.975 | 0.582 | 0.982 | Mizoram |
| 0.964 | 0.899 | 0.993 | 0 | 0.899 | 0.432 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.006 | 0.001 | 0 | 0.804 | 0.387 | 0.967 | Nagaland |
| 0.993 | 0.878 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.957 | 0.002 | 0.004 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.964 | Odisha |
| 0.993 | 0.878 | 0.978 | 0 | 0.374 | 0.295 | 0.986 | 0 | 0.023 | 0.005 | 0 | 0.423 | 0.313 | 0.986 | Puducherry |
| 0.763 | 0.878 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.964 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.961 | Punjab |
| 0.791 | 0.036 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.871 | 0 | 0.009 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.877 | Rajasthan |
| 1 | 0.95 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.619 | 0.993 | 0 | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.683 | 0.965 | Sikkim |
| 0.849 | 0.806 | 0.964 | 0.094 | 0 | 0 | 0.878 | 0.012 | 0.032 | 0.009 | 0.062 | 0 | 0 | 0.868 | Tamil Nadu |
| 0.909 | 0.884 | 0.992 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.95 | 0.002 | 0.012 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.954 | Telangana |
| 0.993 | 0.928 | 1 | 0 | 0.338 | 0.273 | 0.986 | 0 | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 0.262 | 0.256 | 0.986 | Tripura |
| 0.935 | 0.547 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.129 | 0.094 | 0.892 | 0.001 | 0.025 | 0.001 | 0 | 0.218 | 0.144 | 0.922 | Uttarakhand |
| 0.871 | 0.036 | 0.719 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.906 | 0.014 | 0.007 | 0.002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.894 | Uttar Pradesh |
| 0.899 | 0.871 | 0.871 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.892 | 0.001 | 0.05 | 0.005 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.922 | West Bengal |
| 0.778 | 0.889 | 0.889 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.889 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.842 | Telangana |
| 0.88 | 0.623 | 0.93 | 0.052 | 0.269 | 0.179 | 0.94 | 0.003 | 0.011 | 0.002 | 0.034 | 0.271 | 0.18 | 0.94 | Weighted Avg. |
Figure 10Performance measures of the ML Classifiers and Proposed Hybrid model.
Performance analysis of various classifiers over the COVID-19 dataset.
| ML Classifier | TP Rate | FP Rate | Precision | Recall | F-Measure | ROC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision | 0.88 | 0.003 | 0.899 | 0.88 | 0.876 | 0.989 |
| Naïve Bayes | 0.623 | 0.011 | 0.588 | 0.623 | 0.587 | 0.968 |
| SVM | 0.93 | 0.002 | 0.934 | 0.93 | 0.929 | 0.964 |
| Bagging | 0.179 | 0.023 | 0.187 | 0.179 | 0.180 | 0.761 |
| AdaBoost | 0.052 | 0.027 | 0.026 | 0.052 | 0.034 | 0.747 |
| RandomForest | 0.269 | 0.021 | 0.290 | 0.269 | 0.271 | 0.866 |
| Proposed Model | 0.940 | 0.002 | 0.941 | 0.940 | 0.940 | 0.978 |
Figure 11True Positive Rate Predicted by Classification Models for each class.
Figure 12False Positive Rate Predicted by Classification Models for each class.