↓ Skip to main content

Clinical malaria diagnosis: rule-based classification statistical prototype

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Clinical malaria diagnosis: rule-based classification statistical prototype
Published in
SpringerPlus, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2628-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francis Bbosa, Ronald Wesonga, Peter Jehopio

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.

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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 7 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 15 38%
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 08 July 2016.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,499
of 1,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#323,195
of 366,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#215
of 271 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 1,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. 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 366,920 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 271 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.