| Literature DB >> 35915793 |
Madhumita Pal1, Smita Parija1, Ranjan K Mohapatra2, Snehasish Mishra3, Ali A Rabaan4,5,6, Abbas Al Mutair7,8,9, Saad Alhumaid10, Jaffar A Al-Tawfiq11,12,13, Kuldeep Dhama14.
Abstract
Objective: Internet of Things (IoT) integrates several technologies where devices learn from the experience of each other thereby reducing human-intervened likely errors. Modern technologies like IoT and machine learning enable the conventional to patient-specific approach transition in healthcare. In conventional approach, the biggest challenge faced by healthcare professionals is to predict a disease by observing the symptoms, monitoring the remote area patient, and also attending to the patient all the time after being hospitalised. IoT provides real-time data, makes decision-making smarter, and provides far superior analytics, and all these to help improve the quality of healthcare. The main objective of the work was to create an IoT-based automated system using machine learning models for symptom-based COVID-19 prognosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35915793 PMCID: PMC9338856 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3113119
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.246
Scheme 1Proposed model for COVID-19 prognosis.
Features of the dataset.
| Sl. no. | Features | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Breathing problem |
|
| 2. | Fever |
|
| 3. | Sore throat |
|
| 4. | Dry cough |
|
| 5. | Hyper tension |
|
| 6. | Abroad travel |
|
| 7. | Contact with COVID patient |
|
| 8. | Attended large gathering |
|
| 9. | Visited public exposed places |
|
| 10. | Family working in public exposed places |
|
T: true; F: false.
Figure 1Count plot for the numerous patients suffering from COVID-19 (yes) and that did not (no).
Figure 2Pie plot for the patients suffering from COVID-19.
Figure 3Probability of patients suffering from COVID-19 with relevant symptoms.
Different correlation coefficient of the given dataset.
| Types of correlation | Pearson | Spearman | Kendallau |
|---|---|---|---|
| Highest positive correlation | 0.503 | 0.503 | 0.503 |
| Highest negative correlation | -0.016 | -0.016 | -0.016 |
| Lowest correlation | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Mean correlation | 0.139 | 0.139 | 0.139 |
Figure 4Obtained correlation matrix for the given dataset after data cleaning operation.
Figure 5Confusion matrix of k-NN.
Confusion matrix report of k-NN.
| Performance parameter | Description | k-NN |
|---|---|---|
| TP1 | Predicted and actual values are positive | 862 |
| TN1 | Predicted and actual values are negative | 203 |
| FP1 | Predicted value is positive but actual value is negative | 2 |
| FN1 | Predicted value is negative but actual value is positive | 20 |
Figure 6AUC plot of k-NN model.
Classification report of k-NN model.
| Performance matrix | Precision | Recall | F1-score | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.91 | 0.99 | 0.95 | 205 |
| 1 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 882 |
| Accuracy | — | — | 0.98 | 1087 |
| Macro average | 0.95 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 1087 |
| Weighted average | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 1087 |
Performance report of the various test models executed in the study.
| Algorithm | TP | TN | FP | FN | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Precision | F1-score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logistics regression | 852 | 208 | 9 | 18 | 96.50 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.98 |
| Random forest | 821 | 200 | 54 | 51 | 90.66 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.93 |
| Decision tree | 890 | 172 | 20 | 4 | 97.79 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.98 |
| Linear SVM | 885 | 174 | 17 | 11 | 97.42 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 |
| Naïve Bayes | 558 | 233 | 0 | 285 | 73.50 | 0.66 | 1.00 | 0.79 |
| Gradient boosting classifier | 814 | 213 | 55 | 88 | 87.77 | 0.90 | 0.93 | 0.91 |
Accuracy score obtained by ML models.
| ML models | Accuracy score | Run time (seconds) |
|---|---|---|
| k-NN | 97.97 | 0.543 |
| Decision tree | 97.79 | 0.024 |
| Support vector machines | 97.42 | 0.217 |
| Logistics regression | 96.50 | 0.053 |
| Random forest | 90.66 | 5.423 |
| Gradient boosting classifier | 87.77 | 0.523 |
| Naïve Bayes | 73.50 | 0.013 |
Figure 7Accuracy comparison plot of different ML models.
Performance comparison of proposed work with other reported works.
| Model for prediction | Accuracy | Specificity | Sensitivity | AUC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brinati et al. [ | Random forest | 82 | — | — | 84 |
| Tschoellitsch et al. [ | Random forest | 81 | — | — | 74 |
| Tordjman et al. [ | Logistics regression | — | 80.3 | 88.9 | |
| Soltan et al. [ | Extreme gradient boosting tree | — | 94.8 | 77.4 | 99 |
| Alakus and Turkoglu [ | LSTM | 86.66 | — | 99.42 | 62.50 |
| Proposed work | k-NN | 97.97 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 98 |
| Random forest | 90.66 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 98 | |
| Logistics regression | 96.50 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 93 | |
| SVM | 97.42 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 89 | |
| Decision tree | 97.79 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 95 | |
| Gradient boosting classifier | 87.77 | 0.90 | 0.93 | 97 |