Application of intelligence-based computational techniques for classification and early differential diagnosis of COVID-19 disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical methods are used for diagnosing COVID-19 infected patients, but reports posit that, several people who were initially tested positive of COVID-19, and who had some underlying diseases, turned out having negative results after further tests. Therefore, the performance of clinical methods is not always guaranteed. Moreover, chest X-ray image data of COVID-19 infected patients are mostly used in the computational models for COVID-19 diagnosis, while the use of common symptoms, such as fever, cough, fatigue, muscle aches, headache, etc. in computational models is not yet reported. In this study, we employed seven classification algorithms to empirically test and verify their efficacy when applied to diagnose COVID-19 using the aforementioned symptoms. We experimented with Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naïve Byes (NB), Decision Tree (DT), Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), Fuzzy Cognitive Map (FCM) and Deep Neural Network (DNN) algorithms. The techniques were subjected to random undersampling and oversampling. Our results showed that with class imbalance, MLP and DNN outperform others. However, without class imbalance, MLP, FCM and DNN outperform others with the use of random undersampling, but DNN has the best performance by utilizing random oversampling. This study identified MLP, FCM and DNN as better classifiers over LR, NB, DT and SVM, so that healthcare software system developers can adopt them to develop intelligence-based expert systems which both medical personnel and patients can use for differential diagnosis of COVID-19 based on the aforementioned symptoms. However, the test of performance must not be limited to the traditional performance metrics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".