| Literature DB >> 35378723 |
S Subash Chandra Bose1, A Vinoth Kumar2, Anitha Premkumar3, M Deepika4, M Gokilavani5.
Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly infectious viral disease caused by the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus. Different prediction techniques have been developed to predict the coronavirus disease's existence in patients. However, the accurate prediction was not improved and time consumption was not minimized. In order to address these existing problems, a novel technique called Biserial Targeted Feature Projection-based Radial Kernel Regressive Deep Belief Neural Learning (BTFP-RKRDBNL) is introduced to perform accurate disease prediction with lesser time consumption. The BTFP-RKRDBNL techniques perform disease prediction with the help of different layers such as two visible layers namely input and layer and two hidden layers. Initially, the features and data are collected from the dataset and transmitted to the input layer. The Point Biserial Correlative Target feature projection is used to select relevant features and other irrelevant features are removed with minimizing the disease prediction time. Then the relevant features are sent to the hidden layer 2. Next, Radial Kernel Regression is applied to analyze the training features and testing disease features to identify the disease with higher accuracy and a lesser false positive rate. Experimental analysis is planned to measure the prediction accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, and prediction time for different numbers of patients. The result illustrates that the method increases the prediction accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity by 10, 6, and 21% and reduces the prediction time by 10% as compared to state-of-the-art works.Entities:
Keywords: Coronavirus disease 2019; Deep belief neural learning; Point Biserial correlative target feature projection; Radial Kernel regression
Year: 2022 PMID: 35378723 PMCID: PMC8968782 DOI: 10.1007/s00500-022-06943-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Soft comput ISSN: 1432-7643 Impact factor: 3.643
Fig. 1Architecture of the proposed BTFP-RKRDBNL technique
Fig. 2Structural diagram of Deep Belief Neural Learning
Comparison of prediction accuracy versus the number of patient data
| Number of patient data | Prediction accuracy (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Deep-LSTM ensemble model | CESBAS-ANFIS | BTFP-RKRDBNL | |
| 1000 | 83 | 80 | 90 |
| 2000 | 85 | 81 | 90 |
| 3000 | 87.33 | 83.33 | 92 |
| 4000 | 85 | 82.5 | 92.5 |
| 5000 | 87 | 84 | 93.6 |
| 6000 | 85 | 82.5 | 93.16 |
| 7000 | 84.28 | 83.28 | 91.42 |
| 8000 | 85.87 | 83.75 | 91 |
| 9000 | 83.33 | 81.66 | 91.55 |
| 10,000 | 86 | 84 | 90.6 |
Fig. 3Visual representation of prediction accuracy
Comparison of sensitivity versus the number of patient data
| Number of patient data | Sensitivity (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Deep-LSTM ensemble model | CESBAS-ANFIS | BTFP-RKRDBNL | |
| 1000 | 95.06 | 92.30 | 97.75 |
| 2000 | 94.11 | 91.87 | 98.29 |
| 3000 | 94.04 | 91.66 | 98.52 |
| 4000 | 94.11 | 93.16 | 98.63 |
| 5000 | 94.18 | 92.68 | 98.70 |
| 6000 | 93.12 | 90.90 | 98.36 |
| 7000 | 91.52 | 91.06 | 96.82 |
| 8000 | 92.72 | 91.04 | 97.62 |
| 9000 | 89.33 | 88.43 | 97.78 |
| 10,000 | 92.77 | 91.41 | 96.88 |
Comparison of Specificity versus the number of patient data
| Number of patient data | Specificity (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Deep-LSTM ensemble model | CESBAS-ANFIS | BTFP-RKRDBNL | |
| 1000 | 68.42 | 63.63 | 72.72 |
| 2000 | 66.66 | 62.5 | 70.83 |
| 3000 | 47.91 | 50 | 68.96 |
| 4000 | 66.66 | 61.53 | 71.42 |
| 5000 | 57.14 | 55.55 | 70.27 |
| 6000 | 60.43 | 57.14 | 66.66 |
| 7000 | 54.54 | 55.08 | 57.14 |
| 8000 | 55.75 | 53.84 | 66.265 |
| 9000 | 46.66 | 48.48 | 66.666 |
| 10,000 | 47.05 | 48.64 | 64.70 |
Fig. 4Visual representation of the sensitivity
Fig. 5Visual representation of specificity
Comparison of Prediction time versus number of patient data
| Number of patient data | Prediction time (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Deep-LSTM ensemble model | CESBAS-ANFIS | BTFP-RKRDBNL | |
| 1000 | 30 | 34 | 28 |
| 2000 | 32 | 36 | 30 |
| 3000 | 36 | 39 | 33 |
| 4000 | 40 | 44 | 36 |
| 5000 | 43 | 45 | 40 |
| 6000 | 45 | 48 | 42 |
| 7000 | 47 | 49 | 44 |
| 8000 | 50 | 53 | 48 |
| 9000 | 54 | 57 | 52 |
| 10,000 | 58 | 60 | 55 |
Fig. 6Visual representation of prediction time