Ohmann C, Moustakis V, Yang Q, Lang K
Department of General and Trauma Surgery, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Artif Intell Med. 1996 Feb;8(1):23-36. doi: 10.1016/0933-3657(95)00018-6.
Clinical diagnosis in acute abdominal pain is still a major problem. Computer-aided diagnosis offers some help; however, existing systems still produce high error rates. We therefore tested machine learning techniques in order to improve standard statistical systems. The investigation was based on a prospective clinical database with 1254 cases, 46 diagnostic parameters and 15 diagnoses. Independence Bayes and the automatic rule induction techniques ID3, NewId, PRISM, CN2, C4.5 and ITRULE were trained with 839 cases and separately tested on 415 cases. No major differences in overall accuracy were observed (43-48%), except for NewId, which was below the average. Between the different techniques some similarities were found, but also considerable differences with respect to specific diagnoses. Machine learning techniques did not improve the results of the standard model Independence Bayes. Problem dimensionality, sample size and model complexity are major factors influencing diagnostic accuracy in computer-aided diagnosis of acute abdominal pain.
急性腹痛的临床诊断仍然是一个主要问题。计算机辅助诊断提供了一些帮助;然而,现有系统的错误率仍然很高。因此,我们测试了机器学习技术,以改进标准统计系统。该研究基于一个前瞻性临床数据库,其中包含1254例病例、46个诊断参数和15种诊断。使用839例病例对独立贝叶斯以及自动规则归纳技术ID3、NewId、PRISM、CN2、C4.5和ITRULE进行训练,并分别在415例病例上进行测试。除NewId低于平均水平外,未观察到总体准确率有重大差异(43%-48%)。在不同技术之间发现了一些相似之处,但在特定诊断方面也存在相当大的差异。机器学习技术并未改善标准模型独立贝叶斯的结果。问题维度、样本大小和模型复杂性是影响急性腹痛计算机辅助诊断准确性的主要因素。