| Literature DB >> 35228830 |
Ankit Verma1,2, Gaurav Agarwal1, Amit Kumar Gupta1.
Abstract
In the modern healthcare system, the function of the Internet of Things (IoT) and the data mining methods with cloud computing plays an essential role in controlling a large number of big data for predicting and diagnosing various categories of diseases. However, when the patients suffer from more than one disease, the physician may not identify it properly. Therefore, in this research, the predictive method using the cloud with IoT-based database is proposed for forecasting the diseases that utilized the biosensors to estimate the constraints of patients. In addition, a novel Generalized Fuzzy Intelligence-based Ant Lion Optimization (GFIbALO) classifier along with a regression rule is proposed for predicting the diseases accurately. Initially, the dataset is filtered and feature extracted using the regression rule that data is processed on the proposed GFIbALO approach for classifying diseases. Moreover, suppose the patient has been affected by any diseases, in that case, the warning signal will be alerted to the patients via text or any other way, and the patients can get advice from doctors or any other medical support. The implementation of the proposed GFIbALO classifier is done with the use of the MATLAB tool. Subsequently, the results from the presented model are compared with state of the art techniques, and it shows that the presented method is more beneficial in diagnosis and disease forecast.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Big data; Disease prediction; Health care analytics; Internet of things
Year: 2022 PMID: 35228830 PMCID: PMC8868039 DOI: 10.1007/s10586-022-03565-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cluster Comput ISSN: 1386-7857 Impact factor: 2.303
Fig. 1The system model of IoT based healthcare system
Fig. 2The proposed architecture of the health monitoring system
Fig. 3The flowchart of the proposed GFbALO classifier
Risk features and codes
| S. No | Risk features | Normal range and codesa |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gender | Male (0), Female (1) |
| 2 | Age | 15–35 (−1), 36–55(0),56–75(1), > 76(2) |
| 3 | Heartbeat rate (Hr) | 60–100 beats/min, Normal (0); > 60–100 beats/min high (−1); < 60–100 beats/min, low (1) |
| 4 | Respiratory rate (Rr) | 12–18 breaths/min, Normal(0); < 12–18 breaths/min High (1); > 12–18 breaths/min Low (−1) |
| 5 | Diastolic blood pressure (Dbp) | 60–90 mmHg, Normal (0); > 60–90 mmHg, High(2); < 60–90 mmHg, Low (−1) |
| 6 | Systolic blood pressure (Sbp) | 90–120 mmHg, Normal (0); > 90–120 mmHg, High (2); < 90–120 mmHg, Low (−1) |
| 7 | LDL cholesterol (LDLc) | 100–129 mg/dL, Normal (0); > 129 mg/dL, High (1) |
| 8 | HDL cholesterol (HDLc) | 41-59 mg/dL, Normal (0); > 59 mg/dL, High (0) |
| 9 | Total cholesterol (Tc) | 200 mg/dL, Normal (0); > 200 mg/dL, High (1) |
| 10 | Body temperature (Bt) | 97-99F, normal (0); > 99F, High (1) |
| 11 | Output | Heart disease (0); Diabetic (1); High Cholesterol (2); Kidney failure (3); Hypertension (4) |
acodes are used to adjust the potential risk
Fig. 4Significant feature scores by regression rule
Fig. 5GFIbALO training state with objective reached after 1000 epochs
Fig. 6GFIbALO classifier finest scores for various features
Comparison of the sensitivity value
| FPRa | Sensitivity (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD-RCNN | FKNN | hs-cTnI | Hybrid DT | DTNNN | GFIbALO [Proposed] | |
| 0.2 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.58 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.45 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.8 |
| 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.99 | 0.55 | 0.92 | 0.9987 | 0.9 |
| 1 | 0.7 | 0.99 | 0.56 | 0.92 | 0.9987 | 1 |
afalse positive rate
Fig. 7Comparison of specificity (%) with dissimilar classifier techniques
Fig. 8Comparison of sensitivity (FPR) and specificity (TPR) with conventional classifier methods
Fig. 9Analysis of proposed GFIbALO with various classifiers in terms of accuracy
Fig. 10Analysis of proposed GFI-ALO with various classifiers in terms of precision
Fig. 11Analysis of proposed GFIbALO with various classifiers in terms of recall
Fig. 12Processing time(s) with various classifiers
Fig. 13AUC values vs. time
Fig. 14Comparison of error percentage with different techniques
The overall Performance comparison with existing methods
| Parameters & methods | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recala (%) | Error Rate (%) | Processing Time (s) | AUC (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD-RCNN | 75 | 80 | 99 | 90 | 98.08 | 0.01 | 25 | 63 |
| FKNN | 99.28 | 90.42 | 96.74 | 62.5 | 99.27 | 0.0326 | 14 | 65 |
| hs-cTnI | 46.24 | 55 | 72 | 70 | 78 | 0.29 | 19 | 76 |
| Hybrid DT | 92.8 | 82.6 | 88.47 | 59.6 | 70 | 0.0115 | 15 | 80 |
| DTNNN | 98 | 85 | 99.85 | 99.8 | 99 | 0.0015 | 20 | 64 |
| GFIbALO [Proposed] | 1001 | 99.98 | 99.90 | 99.86 | 99.88 | 0.001 | 10 | 88 |
athis indicates that the test to correctly identify those with the disease