Comparative Analysis of Supervised Machine and Deep Learning Algorithms for Kyphosis Disease Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Kyphosis, an excessive forward rounding of the upper back, can occur at any age, adolescence is the most common time for Kyphosis. Surgery is frequently performed on Kyphosis patients; however, the condition may persist after the operation. The tricky part is figuring out, based on the patient’s traits, if the Kyphosis condition will continue after the treatment. There have been numerous models employed in the past to predict the Kyphosis disease, including Logistic Regression (LR), Naive Bayes (NB), Random Forest (RF), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Deep Neural Network (DNN), and others. Unfortunately, the precision was overestimated. Based on the dataset received from Kaggle, we investigated how to predict Kyphosis disorders more accurately by using these models with Hyperparameter tuning. While the calculations were being performed, certain variables were modified. The accuracy was increased by optimizing the fit parameters based on Hyperparameter tuning. Accuracy, recall or sensitivity, specificity, precision, balanced accuracy score, F1 score, and AUC-ROC score of all models, including the Hyperparameter tuning, were compared. Overall, the Hyperparameter-tuned DNN models excelled over the other models. The DNN models’ accuracy was 87.72% with 5-fold cross-validation and 87.64% with 10-fold cross-validation. It is advised that when a patient has a clinical procedure, the DNN model be trained to detect and foresee Kyphosis disease. Medical experts can use this study’s findings to correctly predict if a patient will still have Kyphosis after surgery. We propose that deep learning should be adopted and utilized as a crucial and necessary tool throughout the broad range of resolving biological queries.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".