| Literature DB >> 35685154 |
Yousif Saleh Ibrahim1, Yasser Muhammed2, Asaad T Al-Douri3, Muhammad Shahzad Faisal4, Abdulsattar Abdullah H Mohamad5,6, Abdallah Al-Husban7,8, Mequanint Birhan9.
Abstract
This paper presents the research results on the contribution of user-centered data mining based on the standard principles, focusing on the analysis of survival and mortality of lung cancer cases. Researchers used anonymized data from previously diagnosed instances in the health database to predict the condition of new patients who have not had their results yet. Medical professionals specializing in this field provided feedback on the usefulness of the new software, which was constructed using WEKA data mining tools and the Naive Bayes method. The results of this article provide elements of interest to discuss the value of identifying or discovering relationships in apparently "hidden" information to propose strategies to counteract health problems or prevent future complications and thus contribute to improving the quality of care. Life of the population, as would be the case of data mining in the health area, has shown applicability in the early detection and prevention of diseases for the analysis of genetic markers to determine the probability of a satisfactory response to medical treatment, and the most accurate model was Naive Bayes (91.1%). The Naive Bayes algorithm's closest competitor, bagging, came in second with 90.8%. The analysis found that the ZeroR algorithm had the lowest success rate at 80%.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35685154 PMCID: PMC9173921 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6058213
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Clinical data of the selected patients.
Figure 2Confusion matrix for selected algorithms.
Figure 3Comparison criteria of the various created models.
Comparative analysis of other information about the various created models.
| Logistic regression algorithm | Naive Bayes algorithm | K star | Bagging algorithm | OneR algorithm | ZeroR algorithm | J48 algorithm | Random tree | . Naive Bayes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correctly classified instances | 88.86% | 89.86% | 88.87% | 90.84% | 86.87% | 79.90% | 88.20% | 89.01% | 89.01% |
| Kappa statistics | 0.64 | 0.69 | 0.63 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.64 | 0.68 | 0.68 |
| Mean absolute error | 0.16 | 0.11 | 0.156 | 0.153 | 0.14 | 0.31 | 0.13 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Root mean squared error | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.288 | 0.28 | 0.4 | 0.401 | 0.34 | 0.33 | 0.33 |
| Relative absolute error | 49.30% | 33.70% | 49.30% | 47.68% | 40.79% | 100.00% | 38.40% | 33.10% | 33.10% |
| Root relative squares error | 72.03% | 70.00% | 72.03% | 67.54% | 90.46% | 100.00% | 84.00% | 82.00% | 82.00% |
| Total number of Instances in all algorithms: 404 | |||||||||