| Literature DB >> 35805557 |
Keshav Kaushik1, Akashdeep Bhardwaj1, Ashutosh Dhar Dwivedi2, Rajani Singh2.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in healthcare are approaches to make people's lives easier by anticipating and diagnosing diseases more swiftly than most medical experts. There is a direct link between the insurer and the policyholder when the distance between an insurance business and the consumer is reduced to zero with the use of technology, especially digital health insurance. In comparison with traditional insurance, AI and machine learning have altered the way insurers create health insurance policies and helped consumers receive services faster. Insurance businesses use ML to provide clients with accurate, quick, and efficient health insurance coverage. This research trained and evaluated an artificial intelligence network-based regression-based model to predict health insurance premiums. The authors predicted the health insurance cost incurred by individuals on the basis of their features. On the basis of various parameters, such as age, gender, body mass index, number of children, smoking habits, and geolocation, an artificial neural network model was trained and evaluated. The experimental results displayed an accuracy of 92.72%, and the authors analyzed the model's performance using key performance metrics.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; health insurance; machine learning; neural networks; prediction
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35805557 PMCID: PMC9265373 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19137898
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Research literature classification.
| Literature Classification | Stage 1 | Stage 2 | Stage 3 | Stage 4 | Breakdown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health insurance prediction | 54 | 38 | 23 | 10 | 22.04% |
| Premium calculation | 53 | 37 | 22 | 10 | 21.63% |
| Machine learning | 77 | 54 | 32 | 15 | 31.43% |
| Artificial intelligence | 61 | 43 | 26 | 12 | 24.90% |
| Neural networks | 245 | 172 | 103 | 46 |
Figure 1Research papers selection process.
Figure 2Machine learning-based regression framework.
Relationship between the region and charges.
| Region | Age | BMI | Children | Charges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northeast | 39.268519 | 29.173503 | 1.046296 | 13,406.384516 |
| Northwest | 39.196923 | 29.199785 | 1.147692 | 12,417.575374 |
| Southeast | 38.939560 | 33.355989 | 1.049451 | 14,735.411438 |
| Southwest | 39.455385 | 30.596615 | 1.141538 | 12,346.937377 |
Figure 3Histogram plots for columns.
Figure 4Pairplot diagram of entire dataset.
Figure 5Regplot of charges vs. age.
Figure 6Regplot of charges vs. BMI.
Evaluation metrics for the linear regression model.
| Evaluation Metrics | Value |
|---|---|
|
| 0.499 |
|
| 0.24908696 |
|
| 0.3445451 |
| 0.7509130368819994 | |
| adjusted | 0.7494136420701529 |
ANN model summary.
| Layer (Type) | Output Shape | Number of Parameters |
|---|---|---|
| Dense (dense) | (None, 50) | 450 |
| activation (activation) | (None, 50) | 0 |
| dense_1 | (None, 150) | 7650 |
| activation_1 (activation) | (None, 150) | 0 |
| dense_2 (dense) | (None, 150) | 22,650 |
| activation_2 (activation) | (None, 50) | 0 |
| dense_3 (dense) | (None, 50) | 7550 |
| activation_3 (activation) | (None, 50) | 0 |
| dense_4 (dense) | (None, 1) | 51 |
Figure 7Training loss vs. validation loss.
Figure 8Model predictions vs. true values.
Figure 9Inverse transform of model predictions vs. true values.
Comparison of the evaluation metrics for the trained ANN model vs. linear regression model.
| Evaluation Metrics | ANN Value | Linear Value |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.27 | 0.499 |
|
| 0.07275635 | 0.24908696 |
|
| 0.1432731 | 0.3445451 |
| 0.9272436488919791 | 0.7509130368819994 | |
| adjusted | 0.9268056874105162 | 0.7494136420701529 |
Figure 10Correlation matrix.