A Clinical Decision-Making System for COVID-19

2021 ◽  
pp. 245-249
Author(s):  
Rui Zhou ◽  
Yonghang Tai ◽  
Hongfei Yu ◽  
Xuejuan Wang ◽  
Liqiang Zhang
2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 7807-7829
Author(s):  
Shaista Habib ◽  
Wardat us Salam ◽  
M. Arif Butt ◽  
M. Akram ◽  
F. Smarandache

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death worldwide. Early diagnosis of heart disease can reduce this large number of deaths so that treatment can be carried out. Many decision-making systems have been developed, but they are too complex for medical professionals. To target these objectives, we develop an explainable neutrosophic clinical decision-making system for the timely diagnose of cardiovascular disease risk. We make our system transparent and easy to understand with the help of explainable artificial intelligence techniques so that medical professionals can easily adopt this system. Our system is taking thirty-five symptoms as input parameters, which are, gender, age, genetic disposition, smoking, blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, body mass index, depression, unhealthy diet, metabolic disorder, physical inactivity, pre-eclampsia, rheumatoid arthritis, coffee consumption, pregnancy, rubella, drugs, tobacco, alcohol, heart defect, previous surgery/injury, thyroid, sleep apnea, atrial fibrillation, heart history, infection, homocysteine level, pericardial cysts, marfan syndrome, syphilis, inflammation, clots, cancer, and electrolyte imbalance and finds out the risk of coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathy, congenital heart disease, heart attack, heart arrhythmia, peripheral artery disease, aortic disease, pericardial disease, deep vein thrombosis, heart valve disease, and heart failure. There are five main modules of the system, which are neutrosophication, knowledge base, inference engine, de-neutrosophication, and explainability. To demonstrate the complete working of our system, we design an algorithm and calculates its time complexity. We also present a new de-neutrosophication formula, and give comparison of our the results with existing methods.


2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document