| Literature DB >> 35859929 |
Saad Almutairi1, S Manimurugan1, Naveen Chilamkurti2, Majed Mohammed Aborokbah1, C Narmatha1, Subramaniam Ganesan3, Riyadh A Alzaheb4, Hani Almoamari5.
Abstract
These days, mobile computing devices are ubiquitous and are widely used in almost every facet of daily life. In addition, computing and the modern technologies are not really coexisting anymore. With a wide range of conditions and areas of concern, the medical domain was also concerned. New types of technologies, such as context-aware systems and applications, are constantly being infused into the medicine field. An IoT-enabled healthcare system based on context awareness is developed in this work. In order to collect and store the patient data, smart medical devices are employed. Context-aware data from the database includes the patient's medical records and personal information. The MRIPPER (Modified Repeated Incremental Pruning to Produce Error) technique is used to analyze and classify the data. A rule-based machine learning method is used in this algorithm. The rules for analyzing datasets in order to make predictions about heart disease are framed using this algorithm. MATLAB is used to simulate the proposed model's performance analysis. Other models like random forest, J48, CART, JRip, and OneR algorithms are also compared to validate the proposed model's performance. The proposed model obtains 98.89 percent accuracy, 96.76 percent precision, 99.05 percent sensitivity, 94.35 percent specificity, and 97.60 percent f-score. Predictions for subjects in the normal and abnormal classes were both accurate with 97.38 for normal and 97.93 for abnormal subjects.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35859929 PMCID: PMC9293545 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7853604
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 3.822
Figure 1General process of context-aware system.
Figure 2Block diagram of the proposed model.
Description of data used in rule set.
| Type | Range | Description |
|
| ||
| Chest pain | 1 to 4 | Typical angina |
| Atypical angina | ||
| Nonangina | ||
| Asymptomatic | ||
|
| ||
| Cholesterol | <197 | Lower |
| 188–250 | Medium | |
| 217–307 | Higher | |
| >281 | Very higher | |
|
| ||
| BP | <134 | Lower |
| 124–153 | Medium | |
| 142–172 | Higher | |
| >154 | Very higher | |
|
| ||
| Blood sugar | <120 | No |
| ≥120 | Yes | |
|
| ||
| ECG | <0.4 | Normal |
| 0.4–1.8 | Abnormal | |
| >1.8 | Hypertrophy | |
|
| ||
| Thallium | 3 | Normal |
| 6 | Fixed defect | |
| 7 | Reversible defect | |
|
| ||
| Age | <35 | Younger |
| 35–45 | Middle | |
| 40–58 | Older | |
| >58 | Very older | |
|
| ||
| Gender | 1 | Male |
| 0 | Female | |
|
| ||
| Smoking (in years) | ≤10 | Lower |
| >10 | Higher | |
|
| ||
| Drinking | 0 | No |
| 1 | Yes | |
|
| ||
| Family history (diabetes, hypertension, ...) | <1 | No |
| ≥1 | Yes | |
|
| ||
| Medical records (diabetes, hypertension, ...) | <1 | No |
| ≥1 | Yes | |
Descriptions of Cleveland dataset [19].
| Medical term | Description |
|
| |
| Age | Age (years) |
| Gender | 1 = male; 0 = female |
| Chest pain | Types of chest pains: 1-typical angina, 2-atypical angina, 3-nonanginal pain, and 4-asymptomatic |
| Bps | Resting blood pressure (mm HG) |
| Chol | Serum cholesterol (mg/dl) |
| Fastbs | Fasting blood sugar>120 mg/dl: 0-False and 1-true |
| Continuous max heart rate measured | Exercises induced angina: 0-no and 1-yes |
| Thalac | Max heart rate obtained |
| ST | Depressions induced by exercises related to rest |
| Slopes | The slopes of the peak exercise segments: 1-upsloping, 2-flat, and 3-downsloping |
| Cal | Total major vessels coloured by fluoroscopy which ranged from 0 to 3 |
| Thall | 3-normal, 6-fixed defects, and 7-reversible defects |
| Classes | Diagnosis classes: 0-healthy and 1-presence of heart disease |
Sample of dataset.
| Age | Sex | Cp | Trestbps | Chol | Fbs | Induced angina | Thalach | ST | Slope | Ca | Thall | Class |
|
| ||||||||||||
| 55 | 0 | 3 | 115 | 322 | 0 | 0 | 160 | 1.6 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 0 |
| 74 | 1 | 2 | 124 | 261 | 0 | 0 | 141 | 0.3 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 1 |
Figure 3Performance analysis on normal subjects.
Figure 4Performance analysis on abnormal subjects.
Comparison of performance evaluation on normal and abnormal subjects using MRIPPER algorithm.
| Class | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | Specificity | F-score |
|
| |||||
| Healthy class | 96.48 | 94.81 | 97.21 | 89.64 | 95.50 |
| 97.26 | 95.20 | 98.43 | 90.26 | 96.85 | |
| 96.40 | 94.73 | 97.10 | 89.12 | 95.08 | |
| 97.91 | 95.08 | 98.43 | 91.35 | 96.32 | |
| 98.85 | 96.93 | 99.20 | 92.48 | 97.05 | |
|
| |||||
| Abnormal class | 98.97 | 94.99 | 99.62 | 91.95 | 97.37 |
| 98.51 | 96.64 | 99.45 | 90.16 | 97.01 | |
| 97.32 | 95.82 | 98.35 | 89.78 | 96.95 | |
| 98.04 | 96.34 | 98.92 | 91.65 | 97.46 | |
| 96.85 | 94.75 | 97.45 | 89.51 | 95.68 | |
Comparison of performance analysis.
| Algorithm | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | Specificity | F-score |
|
| |||||
| J48 | 94.08 | 93.45 | 95.82 | 90.24 | 91.18 |
| Random forest | 95.56 | 93.83 | 94.20 | 91.70 | 93.55 |
| CART | 95.80 | 94.06 | 96.48 | 90.96 | 96.13 |
| OneR | 96.48 | 93.21 | 96.54 | 92.11 | 95.24 |
| JRip | 97.66 | 95.01 | 97.80 | 93.54 | 96.15 |
| MRIPPER | 98.89 | 96.76 | 99.05 | 94.35 | 97.60 |
Figure 5MRIPPER performance.
Figure 6Comparison of performance with existing algorithms.