Classification of Diseases of The Urinary System using an Expert System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – Develop and use an Expert System (ES) to classify diseases of the urinary system.Design/methodology/approach – Computational experiments were divided into three phases, as described: Phase A: Database selection: We searched for a database that contains information on diseases of the urinary system. Phase B: Development and Implementation of the Expert System: Rules and variables were planned for the correct data manipulation, and the Expert System was created by implementing the rules and variables. Phase C: Validation of the Expert System: Expert System validated by specialists.Findings – The Expert System was validated by a general practitioner and, as such, was successful while carrying out the tests and results. In conclusion, the Expert System was generated to classify two diseases (Cystitis and Nephritis) of the urinary system. This was validated by a general practitioner who confirmed the accuracy of the information within the system developed and aimed of assisting the field of medicine for a specific organ.Originality/value – The development of the present work has made it possible to assist the specific diagnosis of two diseases of the urinary system. With the assistance of the Specialist System, professionals can be more confident when diagnosing diseases of the urinary system in patients.Keywords - Urinary System; Expert Systems; Artificial Intelligence; Support to The Diagnosis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".