| Literature DB >> 35480158 |
Aisha Mashraqi1, Hanan Halawani1, Turki Alelyani1, Mutaib Mashraqi2, Mohammed Makkawi3, Sultan Alasmari3, Asadullah Shaikh1, Ahmad Alshehri2.
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 is a recently discovered virus that poses an urgent threat to global health. The disease caused by this virus is termed COVID-19. Death tolls in different countries remain to rise, leading to continuous social distancing and lockdowns. Patients of different ages are susceptible to severe disease, in particular those who have been admitted to an ICU. Machine learning (ML) predictive models based on medical data patterns are an emerging topic in areas such as the prediction of liver diseases. Prediction models that combine several variables or features to estimate the risk of people being infected or experiencing a poor outcome from infection could assist medical staff in the treatment of patients, especially those that develop organ failure such as that of the liver. In this paper, we propose a model called the detecting model for liver damage (DMLD) that predicts the risk of liver damage in COVID-19 ICU patients. The DMLD model applies machine learning algorithms in order to assess the risk of liver failure based on patient data. To assess the DMLD model, collected data were preprocessed and used as input for several classifiers. SVM, decision tree (DT), Naïve Bayes (NB), KNN, and ANN classifiers were tested for performance. SVM and DT performed the best in terms of predicting illness severity based on laboratory testing.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35480158 PMCID: PMC9036165 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4584965
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 3.822
Figure 1Study framework.
Figure 2System architecture of DMLD prediction model.
Specific liver enzymes with reference ranges.
| Liver enzymes | Normal range | Disturbed range | Number of patients with disturbed range |
|---|---|---|---|
| AST | 0–0–40 | <40 | 109 |
| ALT | 0–37 | <37 | 109 |
Data set attributes.
| Attribute no. | Attribute | Variable type | Reference range |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Creatinine | Real | 0.5–1.3 |
| A2 | Glucose | Real | 70–110 |
| A3 | Sodium | Real | 135–153 |
| A4 | Potassium | Real | 3.5–5.3 |
| A5 | Calcium | Real | 8.8–10.2 |
| A6 | Phosphorus | Real | 2.7–5 |
| A7 | Magnesium | Real | 1.5–2.6 |
| A8 | Chloride | Real | 98–105 |
| A9 | Uric acid | Real | 3.4–7 |
| A10 | Urea | Real | 10–50 |
| A11 | Albumin | Real | 3.4–4.8 |
| A12 | Total protein | Real | 6.4–8.3 |
| A13 | Cholesterol – total | Real | 50–200 |
| A14 | TG | Real | 23–56 |
| A15 | ALT | Real | 0–37 |
| A16 | AST | Real | 0–41 |
| A17 | Cholesterol – VLDL | Real | 10–40 |
| A18 | Cholesterol – LDL | Real | 50–190 |
| A 19 | Cholesterol – HDL | Real | 30–70 |
| A 20 | LDH | Real | 135–225 |
| Class | Liver damage or not | Binary | 0 or 1 |
| 0 = healthy liver | |||
| 1 = possible liver damage |
Figure 3Classification of data by support vector machine (SVM).
Figure 4Top selected features.
Figure 5Heat map for checking the correlation between selected features.
Figure 6Results of the classifier's performance on the DMLD model.
Evaluation parameters of different classifiers in the DMLD model.
| Predictive models | Accuracy | Precision | Recall |
|---|---|---|---|
| SVM | 0.857 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
| DT | 0.85 | 0.93 | 0.93 |
| NB | 0.71 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| KNN | 0.71 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| ANN | 0.7 | 0.49 | 0.49 |
The impact of different layers on the ANN performance.
| Number of layers | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| 1 | 0.7 |
| 3 | 0.7 |
| 4 | 0.7 |
| 5 | 0.7 |
| 10 | 0.7 |
| 15 | 0.7 |
| 20 | 0.7 |