ArticleSpringerPlus2016
Clinical malaria diagnosis: rule-based classification statistical prototype.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we identified predictors of malaria, developed data mining, statistically enhanced rule-based classification to diagnose malaria and developed an automated system to incorporate the rules and statistical models. The aim of the study was to develop a statistical prototype to perform clinical diagnosis of malaria given its adverse effects on the overall healthcare, yet its treatment remains very expensive for the majority of the patients to afford. Model validation was performed using records from two hospitals (training and predictive datasets) to evaluate system sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. The overall sensitivity of the rule-based classification obtained from the predictive dataset was 70 % [68-74; 95 % CI] with a specificity of 58 % [54-66; 95 % CI]. The values for both sensitivity and specificity varied by age, generally showing better performance for the data mining classification rules for the adult patients. In summary, the proposed system of data mining classification rules provides better performance for persons aged at least 18 years. However, with further modelling, this system of classification rules can provide better sensitivity, specificity and accuracy levels. In conclusion, using the system provides a preliminary test before confirmatory diagnosis is conducted in laboratories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.