EXPERT FUZZY SYSTEMS FOR EVALUATION OF INTENSITY OF REACTIVE EDEMA OF SOFT TISSUES IN PATIENTS WITH DIABETES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper analyzes the main areas of application of mathematical methods in medical diagnostics, formulates principles of diagnostics based on fuzzy logic; developed mathematical models and algorithms that formalize the process of making diagnostic decisions based on fuzzy logic with quantitative and qualitative parameters of the patient's condition; developed mathematical models of membership function. Mathematical models and algorithms have been developed that formalize the process of making diagnostic decisions based on fuzzy logic with quantitative and qualitative parameters of the patient's condition; developed mathematical models of membership functions, formalizing the representation of quantitative and qualitative parameters of the patient's condition in the form of fuzzy sets, used in models and algorithms for diagnosis and finding a diagnosis of assessing the intensity of reactive postoperative edema in patients of all study groups. An expert system was implemented for solving the problems of medical diagnosis based on fuzzy logic when assessing the intensity of reactive swelling of soft tissues, which develops in the postoperative period in patients of all study groups against the background of diabetes. The paper analyzes the main areas of application of mathematical methods in medical diagnostics, formulates the principles of diagnostics based on fuzzy logic.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".