Diagnosa Penyakit Paru-Paru dengan Metode Naive Bayes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lungs as the only pump for the respiratory system are very important organs for the continuation of life. Diagnosing or checking lung symptoms early can help people recognize the possibility that they are suffering from lung disease, so that treatment or care can be done earlier to prevent the severity of the disease. The method used in this study is the Naïve Bayes method. Naive Bayes is a simple probabilistic classifier that calculates a set of probabilities by adding up the frequencies and combinations of values from the given dataset. An expert system is a computer application that can help decision making in more specific fields with methods that have been analyzed in advance by experts or specialists. This study used variables, namely types of lung disease including Pulmonary Tuberculosis (TB), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Bronchial Asthma and Lung Cancer. The results of this study are that lung disease or types of lungs can be diagnosed using the web-based Naïve Bayes method, and make it easier for sufferers to consult without seeing a doctor by selecting symptoms of lung disease.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".