疾病治疗默认的机器学习建模:分类模型的比较分析

IF 1.7 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Advances in Public Health Pub Date : 2023-01-03 DOI:10.1155/2023/4168770
Michael Owusu-Adjei, J. B. Hayfron-Acquah, F. Twum, Gaddafi Abdul-Salaam
{"title":"疾病治疗默认的机器学习建模:分类模型的比较分析","authors":"Michael Owusu-Adjei, J. B. Hayfron-Acquah, F. Twum, Gaddafi Abdul-Salaam","doi":"10.1155/2023/4168770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Generally, treatment default of diseases by patients is regarded as the biggest threat to favourable disease treatment outcomes. It is seen as the reason for the resurgence of infectious diseases including tuberculosis in some developing countries. Sadly, its occurrence in chronic disease management is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Many reasons have been adduced for this phenomenon. Exploration of treatment default using biographic and behavioral metrics collected from patients and healthcare providers remains a challenge. The focus on contextual nonbiomedical measurements using a supervised machine learning modeling technique is aimed at creating an understanding of the reasons why treatment default occurs, including identifying important contextual parameters that contribute to treatment default. The predicted accuracy scores of four supervised machine learning algorithms, namely, gradient boosting, logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machine were 0.87, 0.90, 0.81, and 0.77, respectively. Additionally, performance indicators such as the positive predicted value score for the four models ranged between 98.72%–98.87%, and the negative predicted values of gradient boosting, logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machine were 50%, 75%, 22.22%, and 50%, respectively. Logistic regression appears to have the highest negative-predicted value score of 75%, with the smallest error margin of 25% and the highest accuracy score of 0.90, and the random forest had the lowest negative predicted value score of 22.22%, registering the highest error margin of 77.78%. By performing a chi-square correlation statistic test of variable independence, this study suggests that age, presence of comorbidities, concern for long queuing/waiting time at treatment facilities, availability of qualified clinicians, and the patient’s nutritional state whether on a controlled diet or not are likely to affect their adherence to disease treatment and could result in an increased risk of default.","PeriodicalId":30619,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Public Health","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Machine Learning Modeling of Disease Treatment Default: A Comparative Analysis of Classification Models\",\"authors\":\"Michael Owusu-Adjei, J. B. Hayfron-Acquah, F. Twum, Gaddafi Abdul-Salaam\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2023/4168770\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Generally, treatment default of diseases by patients is regarded as the biggest threat to favourable disease treatment outcomes. It is seen as the reason for the resurgence of infectious diseases including tuberculosis in some developing countries. Sadly, its occurrence in chronic disease management is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Many reasons have been adduced for this phenomenon. Exploration of treatment default using biographic and behavioral metrics collected from patients and healthcare providers remains a challenge. The focus on contextual nonbiomedical measurements using a supervised machine learning modeling technique is aimed at creating an understanding of the reasons why treatment default occurs, including identifying important contextual parameters that contribute to treatment default. The predicted accuracy scores of four supervised machine learning algorithms, namely, gradient boosting, logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machine were 0.87, 0.90, 0.81, and 0.77, respectively. Additionally, performance indicators such as the positive predicted value score for the four models ranged between 98.72%–98.87%, and the negative predicted values of gradient boosting, logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machine were 50%, 75%, 22.22%, and 50%, respectively. Logistic regression appears to have the highest negative-predicted value score of 75%, with the smallest error margin of 25% and the highest accuracy score of 0.90, and the random forest had the lowest negative predicted value score of 22.22%, registering the highest error margin of 77.78%. By performing a chi-square correlation statistic test of variable independence, this study suggests that age, presence of comorbidities, concern for long queuing/waiting time at treatment facilities, availability of qualified clinicians, and the patient’s nutritional state whether on a controlled diet or not are likely to affect their adherence to disease treatment and could result in an increased risk of default.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30619,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Public Health\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4168770\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4168770","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一般来说,患者对疾病的不治疗被认为是对良好的疾病治疗结果的最大威胁。它被认为是一些发展中国家包括结核病在内的传染病死灰复燃的原因。遗憾的是,它在慢性病管理中的发生与高发病率和死亡率有关。关于这一现象,人们提出了许多原因。使用从患者和医疗保健提供者收集的传记和行为指标来探索治疗默认值仍然是一个挑战。使用有监督的机器学习建模技术关注上下文非生物医学测量,旨在理解治疗默认发生的原因,包括识别导致治疗默认的重要上下文参数。梯度增强、逻辑回归、随机森林和支持向量机4种监督式机器学习算法的预测准确率得分分别为0.87、0.90、0.81和0.77。4种模型的正预测值得分在98.72% ~ 98.87%之间,梯度增强、逻辑回归、随机森林和支持向量机的负预测值分别为50%、75%、22.22%和50%。Logistic回归的负预测值得分最高为75%,误差范围最小为25%,准确率得分最高为0.90;随机森林的负预测值得分最低为22.22%,误差范围最高为77.78%。通过对变量独立性进行卡方相关统计检验,本研究表明,年龄、合并症的存在、对治疗机构长时间排队/等待的担忧、合格临床医生的可用性以及患者的营养状况(是否控制饮食)可能会影响他们对疾病治疗的依从性,并可能导致违约风险增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Machine Learning Modeling of Disease Treatment Default: A Comparative Analysis of Classification Models
Generally, treatment default of diseases by patients is regarded as the biggest threat to favourable disease treatment outcomes. It is seen as the reason for the resurgence of infectious diseases including tuberculosis in some developing countries. Sadly, its occurrence in chronic disease management is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Many reasons have been adduced for this phenomenon. Exploration of treatment default using biographic and behavioral metrics collected from patients and healthcare providers remains a challenge. The focus on contextual nonbiomedical measurements using a supervised machine learning modeling technique is aimed at creating an understanding of the reasons why treatment default occurs, including identifying important contextual parameters that contribute to treatment default. The predicted accuracy scores of four supervised machine learning algorithms, namely, gradient boosting, logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machine were 0.87, 0.90, 0.81, and 0.77, respectively. Additionally, performance indicators such as the positive predicted value score for the four models ranged between 98.72%–98.87%, and the negative predicted values of gradient boosting, logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machine were 50%, 75%, 22.22%, and 50%, respectively. Logistic regression appears to have the highest negative-predicted value score of 75%, with the smallest error margin of 25% and the highest accuracy score of 0.90, and the random forest had the lowest negative predicted value score of 22.22%, registering the highest error margin of 77.78%. By performing a chi-square correlation statistic test of variable independence, this study suggests that age, presence of comorbidities, concern for long queuing/waiting time at treatment facilities, availability of qualified clinicians, and the patient’s nutritional state whether on a controlled diet or not are likely to affect their adherence to disease treatment and could result in an increased risk of default.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in Public Health
Advances in Public Health Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Glycemic Index Values of Stiff Porridge (Ugali) Prepared from Maize, Millet, and Sorghum Flours: Which One for Diabetes Management? Childhood Overweight/Obesity amidst Migration, Socioeconomic Factors, and Obesogenic Behaviors: Insights from the Growing Up in New Zealand Study A Critical Review of Social Exclusion and Inclusion among Immigrant and Refugee Women The Antibiotic Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Patients Purchasing Antibiotics without Prescription: Results of National Survey Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Food Intake, Dietary Behavior, Mental Health, and Academic Performance of a Ghanaian University Students
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1