| Literature DB >> 35800708 |
Abed Saif Alghawli1, Ahmed I Taloba2,3.
Abstract
Bipolar disorder is marked by mood swings that alternate between mania and depression. The stages of bipolar disorder (BD), as one of the most common mental conditions, are often misdiagnosed as major depressive disorder (MDD), resulting in ineffective treatment and a poor prognosis. As a result, distinguishing MDD from BD at an earlier phase of the disease may aid in more efficient and targeted treatments. In this research, an enhanced ACO (IACO) technique biologically inspired by and following the required ant colony optimization (ACO) was utilized to minimize the number of features by deleting unrelated or redundant feature data. To distinguish MDD and BD individuals, the selected features were loaded into a support vector machine (SVM), a sophisticated mathematical technique for classification process, regression, functional estimates, and modeling operations. In respect of classifications efficiency and frequency of features extracted, the performance of the IACO method was linked to that of regular ACO, particle swarm optimization (PSO), and genetic algorithm (GA) techniques. The validation was performed using a nested cross-validation (CV) approach to produce nearly reliable estimates of classification error.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35800708 PMCID: PMC9256370 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1332664
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1EEG signal processing.
Figure 2EEG electrodes.
Setup of parameters for GA.
| Sl.no | Parameters | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Scale | 0.8 |
| 2 | Crossover point | 2 points |
| 3 | Rate of mutation | 0.2 |
| 4 | Values of fitness | Classification of accuracy |
| 5 | Patients | String (0,1) |
Figure 3Wrapper-based approach process.
Figure 4Proposed design of ACO-based parameter of feature selection.
SVM classifier utilizing three distinct kernel types.
| Types of kernels | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|
| Polynomial | 58.42 |
| Linear | 56.42 |
| Radial basis function (RBF) | 62.38 |
FS algorithm performance.
| FS techniques | No. of features | Sensitivity | Accuracy | Value of fitness | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| None | 47 | 0.637 | 62.38 | 0.591 | 0.632 |
| GA | 25 | 0.8 | 75.25 | 0.725 | 0.778 |
| PSO | 26 | 0.783 | 73.27 | 0.706 | 0.740 |
| ACO | 26 | 0.837 | 78.22 | 0.751 | 0.780 |
| IACO | 23 | 0.855 | 80.18 | 0.774 | 0.794 |
Figure 5With different numbers of iterations, the ACOFS and IACOFS techniques have different fitness values.
The average execution duration of the FS algorithm.
| Techniques | Average execution duration |
|---|---|
| GA | 21 minutes,13 sec |
| PSO | 19 minutes,39 sec |
| Standard ACO | 23 minutes,8 sec |
| IACO | 17 minutes,12 sec |
Figure 6The effectiveness of each technique.
FS algorithm performance.
| FS technique | Quantity of features | Sensitivity | Fitness rate | Accuracy (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA | 25 | 0.800 | 0.725 | 75.25 | 0.772 |
| PSO | 26 | 0.783 | 0.704 | 78.22 | 0.738 |
| ACO | 25 | 0.837 | 0.751 | 78.22 | 0.778 |
| IACO | 21 | 0.855 | 0.794 | 80.18 | 0.792 |
| None | 49 | 0.637 | 0.591 | 62.37 | 0.632 |
Selection of feature subset by using IACO.
| Δ − frequency band |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|