Key result
An artificial intelligence diagnosis decision support system assessed thrombophilia predisposition with an accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of >95%.
Why the study?
Does an AI-based diagnosis decision support system accurately assess thrombophilia predisposition?
Does an AI-based diagnosis decision support system accurately assess thrombophilia predisposition?
An AI-based decision support system using logic programming and neural networks demonstrates high accuracy (>95%) in assessing thrombophilia risk.
May aid AI tool development for thrombophilia assessment; leaves open need for prospective validation before clinical use.
Thrombophilia stands for a genetic or an acquired tendency to hypercoagulable states, frequently as venous thrombosis. Venous thromboembolism, represented mainly by deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is often a chronic illness, associated with high morbidity and mortality. Therefore, it is crucial to identify the cause of the disease, the most appropriate treatment, the length of treatment or prevent a thrombotic recurrence. This work will focus on the development of a diagnosis decision support system in terms of a formal agenda built on a Logic Programming approach to knowledge representation and reasoning, complemented with a computational framework based on Artificial Neural Networks. The proposed model has been quite accurate in the assessment of thrombophilia predisposition (accuracy close to 95%). Furthermore, the model classified properly the patients that really presented the pathology, as well as classifying the disease absence (sensitivity and specificity higher than 95%).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vilhena et al. (2017) studied Thrombophilia. Artificial intelligence diagnosis decision support system was evaluated on Assessment of thrombophilia predisposition. An artificial intelligence diagnosis decision support system assessed thrombophilia predisposition with an accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of >95%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: