| Literature DB >> 35885452 |
Atiqe Ur Rahman1, Muhammad Saeed1, Mazin Abed Mohammed2, Mustafa Musa Jaber3,4, Begonya Garcia-Zapirain5.
Abstract
Fuzzy parameterized fuzzy hypersoft set (Δ-set) is more flexible and reliable model as it is capable of tackling features such as the assortment of attributes into their relevant subattributes and the determination of vague nature of parameters and their subparametric-valued tuples by employing the concept of fuzzy parameterization and multiargument approximations, respectively. The existing literature on medical diagnosis paid no attention to such features. Riesz Summability (a classical concept of mathematical analysis) is meant to cope with the sequential nature of data. This study aims to integrate these features collectively by using the concepts of fuzzy parameterized fuzzy hypersoft set (Δ-set) and Riesz Summability. After investigating some properties and aggregations of Δ-set, two novel decision-support algorithms are proposed for medical diagnostic decision-making by using the aggregations of Δ-set and Riesz mean technique. These algorithms are then validated using a case study based on real attributes and subattributes of the Cleveland dataset for heart-ailments-based diagnosis. The real values of attributes and subattributes are transformed into fuzzy values by using appropriate transformation criteria. It is proved that both algorithms yield the same and reliable results while considering hypersoft settings. In order to judge flexibility and reliability, the preferential aspects of the proposed study are assessed by its structural comparison with some related pre-developed structures. The proposed approach ensures that reliable results can be obtained by taking a smaller number of evaluating traits and their related subvalues-based tuples for the diagnosis of heart-related ailments.Entities:
Keywords: Cleveland dataset; Riesz Summability; aggregation operator; decision-making; fuzzy parameterized fuzzy soft set; fuzzy soft set; hypersoft set; soft set
Year: 2022 PMID: 35885452 PMCID: PMC9316864 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12071546
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1The pictographic demonstration of inclusive methodology.
Brief description of parameters in CD-set.
| Ordering | Ordering | Parameters | Parameters |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | age | Age in years |
| 2 | 4 | sex | Sex (male/female) |
| 3 | 9 | cp | Chest pain type) |
| 4 | 10 | trestpbs | Resting blood pressure (mm Hg) |
| 5 | 12 | chol | Serum cholesterol (mg/dL) |
| 6 | 16 | fbs | Fasting blood sugar (120 mg/dL) |
| 7 | 19 | restecg | Resting electrocardiographic results |
| 8 | 32 | Thalach | Maximum heart rate achieved |
| 9 | 38 | Exang | Exercise-induced angina |
| 10 | 40 | Oldpeak | ST depression induced by exercise relative to rest |
| 11 | 41 | slope | The slope of the peak exercise ST segment |
| 12 | 44 | ca | Number of major vessels (0–3) colored by fluoroscopy |
| 13 | 51 | thal | 3 = normal; 6 = fixed defect; 7 = reversible defect |
| 14 | 58 | num | Diagnosis of heart disease (angiographic disease status) |
Description of subparametric values for opted parameters.
| Ordering | Ordering | Parameters | Parameters | Values related |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | age | Age in years | 0–20, 21–40, 41–60, Above 60 |
| 3 | 9 | cp | Chest pain type | 1. Typical angina, 2. atypical angina, 3. non-anginal pain, 4. asymptomatic |
| 4 | 10 | trestpbs | Resting blood pressure (mm Hg) | 90–200 mm Hg |
| 5 | 12 | chol | Serum cholesterol (mg/dL) | 126–564 mg/dL |
| 6 | 16 | fbs | Fasting blood sugar (120 mg/dL) | 120 mg/dL |
| 8 | 32 | Thalach | Maximum heart rate achieved | 71–195 |
| 10 | 40 | Oldpeak | ST depression induced by exercise relative to rest | 0.0–5.6 |
| 11 | 41 | slope | The slope of the peak exercise ST segment | 1. upsloping, 2. flat, 3. downsloping |
| 13 | 51 | thal | 3 = normal; 6 = fixed defect; 7 = reversible defect | 1. normal, 2. fixed defect, 3. reversible defect |
Figure 2Types of Cholesterol and their healthy ranges.
Figure 3Ranges of Blood Sugar.
Figure 4ST-segment in ECG (source: Wikipedia).
Figure 5Pictographic view of ST-segment (source: https://litfl.com/st-segment-ecg-library (accessed on 3 October 2021)).
Fuzzy-values-based ranges of opted parameters.
| Selected Parameters | Relevant Values in CD-Set | Transformed Fuzzy Membership Grades |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 0–20, 21–40, 41–60, 61–80 | 0–0.25, 0.2625–0.50, 0.5125–0.75, 0.7625–1.00 |
| Chest pain type) | 1, 2, 3, 4 | 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00 |
| Resting blood pressure | 90–200 | 0.45–1.00 |
| Serum cholesterol | 126–564 | 0.2234–1.0000 |
| Fasting blood sugar | 0, 120 | 0,1 |
| Maximum heart rate achieved | 71–195 | 0.3641–1.0000 |
| Oldpeak | 0.0–5.6 | 0–1 |
| Slope | 1, 2, 3 | 0.33, 0.66, 1.00 |
| Thal | 3, 6, 7 | 0.43, 0.86, 1.00 |
Figure 6Algorithm Based on Decision Set of Type-1.
Figure 9Algorithm Based on Decision Set of Type-2.
Figure 12Ranking Comparison of Both Proposed Algorithms.
Structural analysis of presented structure with pre-developed approaches.
| Authors | Structures | Focus on Attributes | Focus on Subattributive Values | Data Set | Proper Criteria for Fuzzification of Fuzzy Parameters | Riesz Summability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ça | Yes | Ignored | Hypothetical | N/A | N/A | |
| Yılmaz et al. [ | Yes | Ignored | Hypothetical | N/A | Yes | |
| Kirişci [ | Yes | Ignored | CD-set | N/A | N/A | |
| Riaz et al. [ | Yes | Ignored | Hypothetical | N/A | N/A | |
| Zhu et al. [ | Yes | Ignored | Hypothetical | N/A | N/A | |
| Rahman et al. [ | Yes | Yes | Hypothetical | N/A | N/A | |
| Proposed Study | Yes | Yes | CD-set | Adopted | Yes |
Structural analysis of presented structure with predeveloped approaches.
| Authors | Structures | NOA | NOP | Ranking Based on Riesz Summability Method | Ranking Based on Other Adopted Method | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kirişci [ | 11 | 06 | N/A |
| subattributive values are ignored. | |
| Kirişci [ | 11 | 06 | N/A |
| subattributive values are ignored. | |
| Proposed Study | 09 | 06 |
|
| Although values of both methods are different but they both proved analogous with similar ranking of patients. |
Fuzzy membership corresponding to each .
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.5 |
| 0.7 |
|
| 0.25 |
| 0.50 |
|
| 0.75 |
| 0.57 |
|
| 1.00 |
| 0.42 |
|
| 0.72 |
| 0.66 |
|
| 1.00 |
| 0.86 |
Fuzzy membership corresponding to each .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||||
|
| 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | ||||
|
| 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | ||||
|
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||||
|
| 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
|
| 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.57 |
|
| 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
|
| 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.42 | ||||
|
| 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.72 | ||||
|
| 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.66 |
|
| 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
|
| 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.86 |
|
| 0.667 | 0.701 | 0.695 | 0.729 | 0.690 | 0.723 | 0.717 | 0.751 |
Tabular Representation of -set .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
|
| 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
|
| 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
|
| 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
|
| 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.0 |
|
| 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.2 |
|
| 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
Containment of in approximate values of .
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Fuzzy membership for each .
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
| 0.217050 |
|
| 0.294063 |
|
| 0.232288 |
|
| 0.275663 |
|
| 0.343900 |
|
| 0.278850 |
Fuzzy membership for each .
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
| 0.306081 |
|
| 0.414684 |
|
| 0.327569 |
|
| 0.388736 |
|
| 0.484964 |
|
| 0.393231 |