MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784109320 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2017.8254451

Performance Assessment of Decision Tree-Based Predictive Classifiers for Risk Pregnancy Care

2017· article· en· W2784109320 on OpenAlexaff
Mário W. L. Moreira, Joel J. P. C. Rodrigues, Neeraj Kumar, Jianwei Niu, Isaac Woungang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecision treeComputer scienceClassifier (UML)Decision tree learningStatisticCohen's kappaData miningDecision support systemMachine learningArtificial intelligenceHealth careStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The e-Health core concept includes Web usage in an integrated way with tools and services for healthcare. This definition improves access, efficiency, and clinical care quality process that are necessary for a service delivery improvement. Decision support systems (DSSs) belong to a plethora of e-Health concept dimensions. For these systems construction, it is important to find a reliable intelligent mechanism capable to identify diseases that can worsen the patient's clinical condition. Thus, this paper proposes the use of tree-based data mining (DM) techniques for the hypertensive disorders prediction in the risk gestation. It presents the modeling, performance evaluation, and comparison between the tree based classifiers ID3 and NBTree. The 5-fold cross-validation method realizes the performance comparison. Results show that the NBTree classifier obtained better performance, presenting F-measure 0.609, ROC area 0.753, and Kappa statistic 0.4658. This classifier can be a key to a smart system development capable to predict risk events in pregnancy. Therefore, DSSs are a leading solution for the reduction of both mother and fetal mortality.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207