Diagnosa Penyakit Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Menggunakan Metode Certainty Factor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a psychiatric disorder characterized by uncontrollable obsessive thoughts and compulsive behaviors. The disorder triggers anxiety in sufferers that often drives them to avoid situations or places that can trigger obsessions, such as shaking hands or using public restrooms. Proper treatment is necessary to prevent further impact on the quality of life of OCD sufferers. However, early diagnosis is often constrained by limited time and access to medical experts. To overcome this, an expert system based on the Certainty Factor method was developed. This system mimics the thought process of a medical expert in diagnosing OCD using symptoms selected by the user. Certainty Factor is used to calculate the certainty level of each diagnosis based on the inputted symptoms. From the analysis, the system is able to provide diagnoses with high accuracy, even reaching 100% for some OCD cases. These results show that expert systems can be an effective tool in detecting OCD early, thus accelerating the process of proper handling and treatment
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".