Application of Data Mining Using Apriori to Find Patterns of Asthma in Medical Record Data at the Health Center (Case Study: Datar City Health Center)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical records are a very important source of information in the world of health. Medical records document a patient's medical history, diagnosis, treatment, and care patterns at health facilities. However, with the large amount of data that continues to grow every day, it is often difficult for medical personnel and health facility managers to manually analyze and find useful patterns. Community health centers, as primary healthcare facilities, play an important role in addressing public health issues. Community health centers often face limitations in effectively processing available data. Therefore, methods are needed to help uncover hidden information from medical record data. One approach that can be used to analyze big data is data mining. Data mining allows users to find patterns, trends, or certain relationships that were previously unseen. In medical records, the application of data mining techniques can help identify disease patterns, relationships between diseases, and risk factors that contribute to certain diseases by using the apriori method to obtain better health service planning. From testing using the RapidMiner application, this study identified complaints, medical history, and causal factors. The results showed that there were 5 association rules formed with the highest Best rule value of 14% support and 62% confidence. The rule was “If the causal factor is genetic, the complaint is dizziness, then the medical history includes a history of asthma since childhood.”
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".