| Literature DB >> 35197858 |
Yulin Shi1, Xinghua Yao1, Jiatuo Xu1, Xiaojuan Hu2, Liping Tu1, Fang Lan1, Ji Cui1, Longtao Cui1, Jingbin Huang1, Jun Li1, Zijuan Bi1, Jiacai Li1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a common and subjective symptom, which is associated with many diseases and suboptimal health status. A reliable and evidence-based approach is lacking to distinguish disease fatigue and non-disease fatigue. This study aimed to establish a method for early differential diagnosis of fatigue, which can be used to distinguish disease fatigue from non-disease fatigue, and to investigate the feasibility of characterizing fatigue states in a view of tongue and pulse data analysis.Entities:
Keywords: fatigue; intelligent diagnosis; machine learning; pulse diagnosis; tongue diagnosis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35197858 PMCID: PMC8859319 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2021.708742
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
FIGURE 1Overall flowchart.
FIGURE 2Tongue and Face Diagnosis Analysis-1 (TFDA-1) tongue diagnosis instrument. (A) Front view. (B) Profile view.
FIGURE 3The corresponding software analysis interface of TFDA-1 equipment.
FIGURE 4Pulse Diagnosis Analysis-1 (PDA-1) pulse diagnosis instrument and sphygmogram. (A) PDA-1 pulse diagnosis instrument. (B) Sphygmogram and its parameters.
Baseline characteristic [median (P25, P75)].
| Characteristics | Non-disease fatigue subjects ( | Disease fatigue subjects ( | |||
| Hypertension and diabetes ( | Hypertension hyperlipemia ( | Diabetes and hyperlipemia ( | Diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipemia ( | ||
| Male/female | 146/96 | 62/16 | 126/40 | 72/15 | 39/9 |
| Age (year) | 32.00 (28.00, 37.00) | 56.50 (49.75, 65.00)** | 50.00 (39.75, 58.00)**## | 55.00 (48.00, 64.00)**⋆ | 54.00 (47.25, 64.00)** |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 22.39 (20.28, 24.68) | 26.15 (24.08, 28.08)** | 25.70 (23.70, 27.40)** | 26.10 (24.20, 27.70)** | 26.30 (24.68, 27.65)** |
vs. Non-disease fatigue subjects, **p < 0.01.
vs. Hypertension and diabetes,
vs. Hypertension and hyperlipemia,
Statistical analysis of tongue body and tongue coating index [mean (SD), median (P25, P75)].
| Domain | Color space | Index | Healthy subjects ( | Non-disease fatigue subjects ( | Disease fatigue subjects ( |
| TB | Lab | TB-L | 103.69 (5.37) | 103.75 (5.68) | 104.84 (6.53) |
| TB-a | 19.37 (17.57, 21.70) | 20.47 (18.10, 22.68) | 21.12 (18.69, 23.47)** | ||
| TB-b | 6.41 (5.03, 7.80) | 5.04 (0.55, 6.93)** | 1.71 (−5.33, 5.29)**## | ||
| HIS | TB-H | 179.13 (177.00, 181.66) | 176.63 (167.87, 180.00)** | 170.80 (153.12, 176.89)**## | |
| TB-S | 0.17 (0.15, 0.19) | 0.18 (0.15, 0.20) | 0.19 (0.16, 0.21)** | ||
| TB-I | 117.00 (107.00, 129.00) | 118.00 (106.00, 130.00) | 120.00 (112.00, 135.00)**# | ||
| YCrCb | TB-Y | 114.64 (12.77) | 114.98 (13.50) | 117.98 (15.76) | |
| TB-Cr | 151.61 (149.13, 153.91) | 151.31 (148.38, 153.87) | 150.66 (147.88, 153.85) | ||
| TB-Cb | 120.28 (118.98, 121.48) | 121.31 (119.83, 125.29)** | 124.01 (120.70, 130.69)**## | ||
| TC | Lab | TC-L | 107.91 (103.96, 111.42) | 107.93 (104.09, 112.05) | 109.14 (105.15, 113.13)* |
| TC-a | 12.14 (2.52) | 12.76 (2.75)* | 12.71 (3.03) | ||
| TC-b | 4.84 (3.77, 6.20) | 3.26 (−1.05, 5.10)** | 0.88 (−6.59, 4.08)**## | ||
| HIS | TC-H | 181.80 (180.00, 184.84) | 177.49 (161.89, 182.42)** | 169.76 (132.73, 178.59)**## | |
| TC-S | 0.12 (0.03) | 0.12 (0.03) | 0.12 (0.03) | ||
| TC-I | 126.00 (115.00, 137.00) | 127.00 (115.00, 140.00) | 131.00 (119.00, 146.00)**# | ||
| YCrCb | TC-Y | 122.89 (113.53, 132.11) | 122.94 (113.80, 133.72) | 125.92 (116.58, 137.03)** | |
| TC-Cr | 143.66 (141.08, 146.02) | 143.23 (140.63, 145.77) | 142.44 (138.66, 145.91)** | ||
| TC-Cb | 121.78 (120.71, 123.11) | 123.24 (121.63, 127.73)** | 125.61 (122.51, 133.18)**## | ||
| Area index | perAll | 0.47 (0.40, 0.60) | 0.52 (0.41, 0.76) | 0.62 (0.43, 0.90)**# | |
| perPart | 1.14 (1.04, 1.26) | 1.09 (1.03, 1.22) | 1.05 (1.02, 1.18)**# |
vs. Healthy subjects, *p < 0.05, vs. healthy subjects, **p < 0.01.
vs. Non-disease fatigue subjects, #p < 0.05, vs. non-disease fatigue subjects, ##p < 0.01.
Statistical analysis of pulse index [median (P25, P75)].
| Index | Healthy subjects ( | Non-disease fatigue subjects ( | Disease fatigue subjects ( |
| t1(s) | 0.13 (0.12, 0.14) | 0.13 (0.12, 0.14) | 0.14 (0.13, 0.15)**## |
| t4(s) | 0.34 (0.33, 0.36) | 0.34 (0.33, 0.36) | 0.36 (0.34, 0.38)**## |
| t5(s) | 0.41 (0.39, 0.42) | 0.40 (0.39, 0.42) | 0.41 (0.39, 0.43) |
| t(s) | 0.83 (0.77, 0.90) | 0.82 (0.77, 0.90) | 0.82 (0.75, 0.92) |
| h1(mv) | 113.47 (96.27, 135.47) | 110.79 (90.78, 132.93) | 115.17 (88.77, 146.18) |
| h3(mv) | 72.90 (56.40, 90.74) | 70.12 (56.00, 87.64) | 71.40 (52.46, 104.51) |
| h4(mv) | 43.92 (35.09, 53.81) | 41.99 (33.05, 51.75) | 41.67 (30.19, 56.70) |
| h5(mv) | 3.5 (1.13, 6.71) | 3.24 (0.65, 6.09) | 0.87 (−0.53, 3.16)**## |
| w1(s) | 0.17 (0.13, 0.19) | 0.17 (0.14, 0.19) | 0.18 (0.15, 0.20)**# |
| w2(s) | 0.11 (0.09, 0.14) | 0.11 (0.09, 0.14) | 0.13 (0.11, 0.16)**## |
| w1/t | 0.20 (0.17, 0.23) | 0.20 (0.18, 0.23) | 0.22 (0.19, 0.24)**# |
| w2/t | 0.13 (0.11, 0.16) | 0.14 (0.11, 0.17) | 0.16 (0.13, 0.18)**## |
vs. Healthy subjects, **p < 0.01.
vs. Non-disease fatigue subjects, #p < 0.05, vs. non-disease fatigue subjects, ##p < 0.01.
Classification results of disease fatigue against non-disease fatigue over four datasets using four classifiers.
| Classifiers | Data sets | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | F1 | Precision (%) | Accuracy (%) | AUC |
| Logistic regression | Tongue | 60.82 ± 4.26 | 64.49 ± 5.71 | 0.6192 ± 0.0272 | 63.32 ± 3.41 | 62.65 ± 2.67 | 0.6666 ± 0.0284 |
| Pulse | 62.86 ± 6.88 | 63.67 ± 4.36 | 0.6297 ± 0.0476 | 63.33 ± 3.37 | 63.27 ± 3.93 | 0.6990 ± 0.0370 | |
| Tongue & Pulse | 67.76 ± 6.11 | 67.14 ± 6.35 | 0.6749 ± 0.0457 | 67.49 ± 4.75 | 67.45 ± 4.32 | 0.7395 ± 0.0415 | |
| Tongue & Pulse & Age & BMI | 84.90 ± 3.56 | 86.12 ± 4.36 | 0.8542 ± 0.0181 | 86.18 ± 3.67 | 85.51 ± 1.87 | 0.9160 ± 0.0136 | |
| SVM | Tongue | 56.33 ± 4.58 | 68.78 ± 7.13 | 0.6004 ± 0.0303 | 64.71 ± 4.70 | 62.55 ± 3.10 | 0.6470 ± 0.0430 |
| Pulse | 64.29 ± 4.76 | 65.71 ± 3.00 | 0.6468 ± 0.0313 | 65.21 ± 2.20 | 65.00 ± 2.50 | 0.7035 ± 0.0243 | |
| Tongue & Pulse | 65.10 ± 6.42 | 68.57 ± 5.34 | 0.6617 ± 0.0506 | 67.48 ± 4.60 | 66.84 ± 4.59 | 0.7203 ± 0.0389 | |
| Tongue & Pulse & Age & BMI | 85.31 ± 5.83 | 82.24 ± 5.56 | 0.8399 ± 0.0439 | 82.92 ± 4.78 | 83.78 ± 4.39 | 0.9106 ± 0.0365 | |
| Random forest | Tongue | 61.84 ± 6.89 | 68.37 ± 4.00 | 0.6380 ± 0.0521 | 66.08 ± 4.14 | 65.10 ± 4.40 | 0.6803 ± 0.0630 |
| Pulse | 60.61 ± 5.78 | 61.84 ± 6.89 | 0.6097 ± 0.0498 | 61.52 ± 5.39 | 61.22 ± 5.14 | 0.6582 ± 0.0509 | |
| Tongue & Pulse | 66.94 ± 5.38 | 70.41 ± 5.79 | 0.6806 ± 0.0356 | 69.57 ± 4.22 | 68.67 ± 3.32 | 0.7423 ± 0.0444 | |
| Tongue & Pulse & Age & BMI | 84.90 ± 4.40 | 81.63 ± 4.74 | 0.8353 ± 0.0344 | 82.33 ± 3.99 | 83.27 ± 3.48 | 0.8959 ± 0.0254 | |
| Neural network | Tongue | 62.45 ± 5.86 | 63.88 ± 5.78 | 0.6281 ± 0.0403 | 63.47 ± 3.72 | 63.16 ± 3.49 | 0.6639 ± 0.0255 |
| Pulse | 65.31 ± 7.36 | 64.90 ± 6.04 | 0.6500 ± 0.0390 | 65.17 ± 2.89 | 65.10 ± 2.77 | 0.7087 ± 0.0330 | |
| Tongue & Pulse | 65.7 ± 12.27 | 70.2 ± 13.20 | 0.6664 ± 0.0633 | 70.34 ± 6.27 | 67.96 ± 3.33 | 0.7454 ± 0.0349 | |
| Tongue & Pulse & Age & BMI | 85.31 ± 6.57 | 86.33 ± 1.84 | 0.8562 ± 0.0353 | 86.19 ± 1.50 | 85.82 ± 3.01 | 0.9239 ± 0.0174 |
FIGURE 5Receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) of 10 times repeated experiments obtained using logistic regression over four datasets. (A) ROCs over “Tongue” dataset. (B) ROCs over “Pulse” dataset. (C) ROCs over “Tongue & Pulse” dataset. (D) ROCs over “Tongue & Pulse & Age & BMI” dataset.
FIGURE 8Receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) of 10 times repeated experiments obtained using neural network over four datasets. (A) ROCs over “Tongue” dataset. (B) ROCs over “Pulse” dataset. (C) ROCs over “Tongue & Pulse” dataset. (D) ROCs over “Tongue & Pulse & Age & BMI” dataset.
FIGURE 9The accuracy rate of four classifiers over four datasets.
FIGURE 10Visualization of “Tongue” data based on different classifiers. (A) Logistic regression. (B) Neural network. (C) Random forest. (D) SVM.
FIGURE 11Visualization of “Pulse” data based on different classifiers. (A) Logistic regression. (B) Neural network. (C) Random forest. (D) SVM.