Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25119238›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2014

Developing a genetic fuzzy system for risk assessment of mortality after cardiac surgery.

Mahyar Taghizadeh Nouei, Ali Vahidian Kamyad, MahmoodReza Sarzaeem, Somayeh Ghazalbash

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Machine learning techniques in cardiac risk assessment.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2018
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mahyar Taghizadeh NoueiDepartment of Applied Mathematics, School of Mathematical Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, International Campus, Mashhad, Iran, M.nouei@yahoo.ca.
Ali Vahidian Kamyad
MahmoodReza Sarzaeem
Somayeh Ghazalbash

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiac events could be taken into account as the leading causes of death throughout the globe. Such events also trigger an undesirable increase in what treatment procedures cost. Despite the giant leaps in technological development in heart surgery, coronary surgery still carries the high risk of the mortality. Besides, there is still a long way ahead to accurately predict and assess the mortality risk. This study is an attempt to develop an expert system for the risk assessment of mortality following the cardiac surgery. The developed system involves three main steps. In the first step, a filtering feature selection method is applied to select the best features. In the second step, an ad hoc data-driven method is utilized to generate the preliminary fuzzy inference system. Finally, a hybrid optimization method is presented to select the optimum subset of the rules. The study relies on 1,811 samples to evaluate the diagnosis performance of the proposed system. The obtained classification accuracy is very promising with regard to other benchmark classification methods including binary logistic regression (LR) and multilayer perceptron neural network (MLP) with the same attributes. The developed system leads to 100% sensitivity and 84.7% specificity, while LR and MLP methods statistically come up with lower figures (65, 78.6 and 65%, 75.8%), respectively. Now, a fuzzy supportive tool can be potentially taken as an alternative for the current mortality risk assessment system that are applied in coronary surgeries, and are chiefly based on crisp database.

Indexed as

Expert SystemsFuzzy LogicAgedAlgorithmsCoronary Artery DiseaseHumansMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificityThoracic Surgical Procedures

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.