| Literature DB >> 35958813 |
Saravana Selvan1, S John Justin Thangaraj2, J Samson Isaac3, T Benil4, K Muthulakshmi5, Hesham S Almoallim6, Sulaiman Ali Alharbi7, R R Kumar8, Sojan Palukaran Thimothy9.
Abstract
Prenatal heart disease, generally known as cardiac problems (CHDs), is a group of ailments that damage the heartbeat and has recently now become top deaths worldwide. It connects a plethora of cardiovascular diseases risks to the urgent in need of accurate, trustworthy, and effective approaches for early recognition. Data preprocessing is a common method for evaluating big quantities of information in the medical business. To help clinicians forecast heart problems, investigators utilize a range of data mining algorithms to examine enormous volumes of intricate medical information. The system is predicated on classification models such as NB, KNN, DT, and RF algorithms, so it includes a variety of cardiac disease-related variables. It takes do with an entire dataset from the medical research database of patients with heart disease. The set has 300 instances and 75 attributes. Considering their relevance in establishing the usefulness of alternate approaches, only 15 of the 75 criteria are examined. The purpose of this research is to predict whether or not a person will develop cardiovascular disease. According to the statistics, naïve Bayes classifier has the highest overall accuracy.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35958813 PMCID: PMC9363204 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2003184
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.246
Figure 1Proposed model for machine learning.
Figure 2Block diagram of naïve Bayes classifier.
Figure 3Proposed naïve Bayes algorithm.
Figure 4Flowchart of naïve Bayes classifier.
Accuracy rate of naïve Bayes classifier using without processing and feature extraction and with processing and feature extraction.
| Preprocessing | Instance classified in correct format | Instance classified in incorrect format | Recall | Precision |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without processing and feature extraction | 2711 | 88 | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.97 |
| With processing and feature extraction | 2654 | 125 | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.96 |
Accuracy rate of naïve Bayes classifier using various features and dataset.
| Preprocessing | Instance classified in correct format | Instance classified in incorrect format | Time (secs) | Recall | Precision |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature extraction without preprocessing | 2711 | 86 | 9.6 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0,95 |
| Feature extraction–gain ratio with preprocessing | 2535 | 121 | 0.15 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.94 |
| Feature extraction-chi-square with preprocessing | 2610 | 84 | 0.2 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.98 |
Accuracy comparison using training and testing data with various techniques.
| Accuracy | NBC | DT | RF | KNN |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training dataset | 89.15 | 78.3 | 74.6 | 84.3 |
| Testing dataset | 90.5 | 83.5 | 78.9 | 82.94 |
Figure 5Accuracy comparison of various classifiers.
Comparison of accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity using various techniques.
| Methods | NBC (%) | KNN (%) | DT (%) | RF (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 97 | 92 | 89 | 79 |
| Specificity | 96 | 88 | 78 | 75 |
| Sensitivity | 94 | 87 | 74 | 72 |
Figure 6Specificity comparison of various classifiers.
Figure 7Sensitivity comparison of various classifiers.