↓ Skip to main content

Applying machine learning techniques to the identification of late-onset hypogonadism in elderly men

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Applying machine learning techniques to the identification of late-onset hypogonadism in elderly men
Published in
SpringerPlus, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2531-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ti Lu, Ya-Han Hu, Chih-Fong Tsai, Shih-Ping Liu, Pei-Ling Chen

Abstract

In the diagnosis of late-onset hypogonadism (LOH), the Androgen Deficiency in the Aging Male (ADAM) questionnaire or Aging Males' Symptoms (AMS) scale can be used to assess related symptoms. Subsequently, blood tests are used to measure serum testosterone levels. However, results obtained using ADAM and AMS have revealed no significant correlations between ADAM and AMS scores and LOH, and the rate of misclassification is high. Recently, many studies have reported significant associations between clinical conditions such as the metabolic syndrome, obesity, lower urinary tract symptoms, and LOH. In this study, we sampled 772 clinical cases of men who completed both a health checkup and two questionnaires (ADAM and AMS). The data were obtained from the largest medical center in Taiwan. Two well-known classification techniques, the decision tree (DT) and logistic regression, were used to construct LOH prediction models on the basis of the aforementioned features. The results indicate that although the sensitivity of ADAM is the highest (0.878), it has the lowest specificity (0.099), which implies that ADAM overestimates LOH occurrence. In addition, DT combined with the AdaBoost technique (AdaBoost DT) has the second highest sensitivity (0.861) and specificity (0.842), resulting in having the best accuracy (0.851) among all classifiers. AdaBoost DT can provide robust predictions that will aid clinical decisions and can help medical staff in accurately assessing the possibilities of LOH occurrence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 18%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 18%
Engineering 3 14%
Computer Science 2 9%
Psychology 2 9%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 7 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,335,423
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,461
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#282,529
of 326,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#179
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.