Dergiler / Annals of Medical Research / 2020 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 3

Different machine learning methods based prediction of mild cognitive impairment

Sayfa
833–839
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Therefore, SVM can be stated that it is the most suitable method for the predictionof cognitive impairment.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: In this study benefits from different machine learning methods to analyze factors which affect young person’s scores ofcognitive assessment.Material and Methods: This study was performed among 144 persons aged between 18 and 24 who study at Kahramanmaras SutcuImam University.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:K-10fold cross validation method was also used.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Therefore, SVM can be stated that it is the most suitable method for the predictionof cognitive impairment.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Aim: In this study benefits from different machine learning methods to analyze factors which affect young person’s scores ofcognitive assessment.Material and Methods: This study was performed among 144 persons aged between 18 and 24 who study at Kahramanmaras SutcuImam University. Boosted Tree Regression (BTR), Random Forest Regression (RFR) and Support Vector Machine (SVM), which areamong machine learning methods, were used in order to determine the factors affecting the score of cognitive assessment. K-10fold cross validation method was also used. Mean Squared Error (MSE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error(MAE) and Correlation coefficients (R) metrics were used in order to measure prediction performances of machine learning methods.Results: MSE values were calculated as 9.66 for BTR, 9.78 for RFR, and 6.43 for SVM. MAE values were calculated as 2.06 for BTR,2.05 for RFR, and 1.97 for SVM. RMSE values were calculated as 3.10 for BTR, 3.12 for RFR, and 2.53 for SVM. Finally, correlationcoefficients were calculated as 0.289 for BTR, 0.371 for RFR and 0.546 for SVM. In addition, it was also found out that the mostimportant variables which affected the scores of cognitive assessment were anti-depressant use, depression and obsession.Conclusion: It was demonstrated in this study that SVM displayed the lowest error rates and highest prediction performance in termsof determining the score of cognitive assessment. Therefore, SVM can be stated that it is the most suitable method for the predictionof cognitive impairment.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ESER, N., DOĞANER, A., YAMAN, S., METİN, T. Ö. (2022). Different machine learning methods based prediction of mild cognitive impairment. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 3, 833–839. https://ajindex.com/articles/446410

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (16)

  1. Sachdev PS, Lipnicki DM, Kochan NA, et al. The Prevalence of Mild Cognitive Impairment in Diverse Geographical and Ethnocultural Regions: The COSMIC Collaboration. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0142388
  2. Plassman BL, Langa KM, Fisher GG, et al. Prevalence of cognitive impairment without dementia in the United States. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:427-34
  3. Mavrodaris A, Powell J, Thorogood M. Prevalences of dementia and cognitive impairment among older people in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2013;91:773- 83
  4. World Health Organization. The world health report: primary health care now more than ever. Geneva, 2008
  5. DeCarli C. Mild cognitive impairment: prevalence, prognosis, aetiology, and treatment. The Lancet Neurology 2003;2:15-21
  6. Castaneda AE, Tuulio-Henriksson A, Marttunen M, et al. Review on cognitive impairments in depressive and anxiety disorders with a focus on young adults. J Affective Disorders 2008;106:1-27
  7. Porter RJ, Gallagher P, Thompson, JM. et al. Neurocognitive impairment in drug-free patients with major depressive disorder. British J Psychiatry 2003;182: 214-20
  8. Burns JM, Andrews G, Szabo M. Depression in young people: what causes it and can we prevent it? Medical J Australia 2002;177:93-6
  9. Thompson PJ, Trimble MR. Non-MAOI antidepressant drugs and cognitive functions: a review. Psychological Med 1982;12:539-48
  10. Shin NY, Lee TY, Kim E, et al. Cognitive functioning in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a meta-analysis. Psychological Med 2014;44:1121-30
  11. Nilsson NJ. Introduction to machine learning: An early draft of a proposed textbook. Stanford, Stanford University 1996
  12. Van der Meer D, Hoekstra PJ, Van Donkelaar M, et al. Predicting attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder severity from psychosocial stress and stressresponse genes: a random forest regression approach. Translational Psychiatry 2017;7:1145
  13. Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA. Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning. Statistics in Med 2010;29:337-46
  14. Månsson KN, Frick A, Boraxbekk CJ, et al. Predicting long-term outcome of Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for social anxiety disorder using fMRI and support vector machine learning. Translational Psychiatry 2015;5:530
  15. O’Dwyer L, Lamberton F, Bokde AL, et al. Using support vector machines with multiple indices of diffusion for automated classification of mild cognitive impairment. PloS one 2012;7:32441
  16. Arslan AK, Colak