| Literature DB >> 36042799 |
Kavita Rijhwani1, Vikrant R Mohanty1, Aswini Yb1, Vaibhav Singh2, Sumbul Hashmi1.
Abstract
Objectives: Predictive analysis can be used to evaluate the enormous data generated by the healthcare industry to extract information and establish relationships amongst the variables. It uses artificial intelligence to reveal associations not suspected by the healthcare professionals. Tobacco cessation is clearly beneficial; however, many tobacco users respond differently as it is based on multitude of factors. Our objectives were to assess the data mining techniques using the WEKA tool, evaluate its role in predictive analysis, and to predict the quit status of patients using prediction algorithms in tobacco cessation. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: Algorithms; Data Mining; Tobacco Use Cessation
Year: 2020 PMID: 36042799 PMCID: PMC9375116 DOI: 10.18502/fid.v17i24.4624
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Dent ISSN: 2676-296X
Description of dataset used for predicting the quit status
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
| 0–15 years., 15–25 years., 26–36 years., 37–47 years., 48–60 years |
|
| Male/Female |
|
| Professor, Graduate or post-graduate, intermediate, high school diploma, middle school, primary school, illiterate |
|
| Married/Unmarried |
|
| Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, others |
|
| Profession, Semi-profession, clerical/shop owner/farmer, skilled worker, semi-skilled, unskilled, unemployed |
|
| 8–12 hrs., 12–16 hrs., 16–20 yrs. |
|
| 0–4, 4–8, 8–12, >12 |
|
| Smoke form, smokeless form |
|
| 10 or less, 11–20, 21–30, 31 or more |
|
| Less than 5 yrs., 5–10 yrs., 10–15 yrs., 15–20 yrs., more than 20 yrs. |
|
| Yes /no |
|
| Pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance |
|
| High, medium, low |
|
| Cold turkey, Behavioral counseling, Behavior counseling +nicotine replacement therapy |
|
| Decreased the habit, quit, not quitting |
Fig. 1.Five different modes/applications in WEKA tool
Fig. 2.Different types of classifiers in WEKA tool used for classification and prediction models
Fig. 3.An example of Naive Bayes algorithm after applying on dataset
Comparison of different classifiers for prediction accuracy
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.05 | 1.77 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 0.06 |
|
| 41.33% | 52.21 | 55.87% | 51.60% | 47.02% |
|
| 50.68% | 47.78% | 44.12% | 48.39% | 52.97% |
Ranking of predictors for quit status
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.14 | 1ST |
|
| 0.11 | 2ND |
|
| 0.06 | 3RD |
|
| 0.017 | 4TH |
|
| 0.013 | 5TH |
Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of various classifiers
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.487 | 0.492 | 41.33% |
|
| 0.506 | 0.518 | 51.60% |
|
| 0.515 | 0.518 | 52.21% |
|
| 0.516 | 0.559 | 55.87% |
|
| 0.455 | 0.460 | 47.02% |