JMERC
Owner
Janbazan Medical and Engineering Research Center (JMERC) is the owner of IJWPH.
0.4
Cite Score
SJR: 0.114 / SNIP: 0.090
Volume 16, Issue 4 (2024)
Iran J War Public Health 2024, 16(4): 363-368 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2024/11/5 | Accepted: 2024/12/1 | Published: 2024/12/4
Received: 2024/11/5 | Accepted: 2024/12/1 | Published: 2024/12/4
How to cite this article
Kavehie B. Disease Prediction in Victims of Chemical Exposure Using Forced Expiratory Volume; Logistic Regression vs. Machine Learning Methods. Iran J War Public Health 2024; 16 (4) :363-368
URL: http://ijwph.ir/article-1-1531-en.html
URL: http://ijwph.ir/article-1-1531-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Authors
B. Kavehie *
Department of Statistics, National Organization for Educational Testing, Tehran, Iran
Abstract (600 Views)
Aims: Predicting the presence of respiratory diseases at minimal cost in individuals exposed to chemical weapons, is an ideal goal. This study employed Machine Learning and Logistic Regression methods to develop and compare predictive models for determining the health status of individuals and eventually compare the efficiency of these models’ performance.
Materials & Methods: This cross-sectional analytical study was conducted on 320 male individuals in Sardasht City who were affected by the harmful effects of Mustard gas (a sulfur-based chemical warfare weapon) in 2023. Predictors such as age, gender, and FEV₁ at the first measurement and again two years later were used. This article has measured FEV₁ values of 2005 and 2007. Using SPSS 22 software, the researcher utilized a modified version of the Logistic regression formula that calculates the probability of occurrence, tailored to meet the specific needs of the problem.
Finding: The mean FEV₁ value at the first measurement (2005) was 73.10±20.70, and at the second measurement (2007) was 82.10±21.81. Calculated predictive accuracy for the ML 0.9, ML 0.8, ML 0.7, ML 0.6, ML 0.5 Logistic Regression models were 0.813, 0.809, 0.806, 0.813, 0.813, and 0.806, respectively. The agreement between the logistic regression models and ML 0.9, ML 0.8, ML 0.7, ML 0.6, ML 0.5 were 98.8%, 98.8%, 98.4%, 98.4%, and 99.6%, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the performance of Machine Learning and Logistic Regression models on data from chemical warfare casualties.
Conclusion: Using the FEV1 is recommended for the early detection of pulmonary diseases in individuals with respiratory disorders.
Materials & Methods: This cross-sectional analytical study was conducted on 320 male individuals in Sardasht City who were affected by the harmful effects of Mustard gas (a sulfur-based chemical warfare weapon) in 2023. Predictors such as age, gender, and FEV₁ at the first measurement and again two years later were used. This article has measured FEV₁ values of 2005 and 2007. Using SPSS 22 software, the researcher utilized a modified version of the Logistic regression formula that calculates the probability of occurrence, tailored to meet the specific needs of the problem.
Finding: The mean FEV₁ value at the first measurement (2005) was 73.10±20.70, and at the second measurement (2007) was 82.10±21.81. Calculated predictive accuracy for the ML 0.9, ML 0.8, ML 0.7, ML 0.6, ML 0.5 Logistic Regression models were 0.813, 0.809, 0.806, 0.813, 0.813, and 0.806, respectively. The agreement between the logistic regression models and ML 0.9, ML 0.8, ML 0.7, ML 0.6, ML 0.5 were 98.8%, 98.8%, 98.4%, 98.4%, and 99.6%, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the performance of Machine Learning and Logistic Regression models on data from chemical warfare casualties.
Conclusion: Using the FEV1 is recommended for the early detection of pulmonary diseases in individuals with respiratory disorders.
Keywords:
References
1. United Nations Security General. Report of the mission dispatched by the secretary-general to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq. New York: United Nations; 1988. [Link]
2. Prentiss AM. Vesicant agents. In: Chemicals in warfare: A treatise on chemical warfare. London: McGraw-Hill; 1937. p. 177-300. [Link]
3. Ghazanfari T, Faghihzadeh S, Aragizadeh H, Soroush MR, Yaraee R, Mohammad Hassan Z, et al. Sardasht-Iran cohort study of chemical warfare victims: Design and methods. Arch Iran Med. 2009;12(1):5-14. [Link]
4. Marrs TC, Maynard Rl, Sidell FR. Chemical warfare against: Toxicology and treatment. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons; 2007. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/9780470060032]
5. Somani SM. Chemical warfare against. San Diego: Academic Press; 1992. [Link]
6. Balali-Mood M, Balali-Mood B. Sulphur mustard poisoning and its complications in Iranian veterans. Iran J Med Sci. 2009;34(3):155-71. [Link]
7. Dadpey M, Ghahari L. Respiratory complication of Mustard gas in Iraq-Iran war victims living in Kermanshah. Ann Mil Health Sci Res. 2007;5(3):1331-5. [Persian] [Link]
8. Balali Mood M, Hefazati M. Acute poisoning with sulfur mustard gas. J Birjand Univ Med Sci. 2004:11(2):9-15. [Persian] [Link]
9. Khateri S, Ghanei M, Keshavarz S, Soroush M, Haines D. Incidence of lung, eye and skin lesions on late complications in 34,000 Iranian with wartime exposure to mustard agent. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45(11):1136-43. [Link] [DOI:10.1097/01.jom.0000094993.20914.d1]
10. Balali-Mood M, Hefazi M, Mahmoudi M, Jalali E, Attaran D, Maleki M, et al. Long-term complications of Sulphur mustard poisoning in severely intoxicated Iranian veterans. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2005;19(6):713-21. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/j.1472-8206.2005.00364.x]
11. Balali-Mood M, Navaeian A. Clinical and paraclinical findings in 233 patients with sulfur mustard poisoning. Proceedings of the Second World Congress on New Compounds in Biological and Chemical Warfare Ghent. Ghent: Ghent University; 1986. [Link]
12. Kavehie B, Faghihzadeh S, Eskandari F, Kazemnejad S, Ghazanfari T, Soroosh MR. Studying the surrogate validity of respiratory indexes in predicting the respiratory illnesses in wounded people exposed to sulfur mustard. J Arak Univ Med Sci. 2011;13(4):75-82. [Persian] [Link]
13. Erturan AM, Karaduman G, Durmaz H. Machine learning-based approach for efficient prediction of toxicity of chemical gases using feature selection. J Hazard Mater. 2023;455:131616. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131616]
14. Zeren J, Hu P, Xu H, Wang Q. Machine learning and deep learning in chemical health and safety: A systematic review of techniques and applications. ACS Chem Health Saf. 2020;27(6):316-34. [Link] [DOI:10.1021/acs.chas.0c00075]
15. Wu Y, Wang G. Machine learning based toxicity prediction: From chemical structural description to transcriptome analysis. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(8):2358. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/ijms19082358]
16. Zhang SQ, Xu LC, Li SW, Oliveira JCA, Li X, Ackermann L, et al. Bridging chemical knowledge and machine learning for performance prediction of organic synthesis. Chemistry. 2023;29(6):e202202834. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/chem.202380662]
17. Cova TFGG, Pais AACC. Deep learning for deep chemistry: Optimizing the prediction of chemical patterns. Front Chem. 2019;7:809. [Link] [DOI:10.3389/fchem.2019.00809]
18. Russell S, Norvig P. Artificial fintelligence: A modern approach. 3rd ed. London: Pearson; 2009. [Link]
19. Bishop CM. Pattern recognition and machine learning. New York: Springer; 2006. [Link]
20. Jordan MI, Mitchell TM. Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science. 2015;349(6245):255-60. [Link] [DOI:10.1126/science.aaa8415]
21. Mandel M, Gibson WS. Clinical manifestations and treatment of gas poisoning. JAMA. 1917;LXIX(23):1970-1. [Link] [DOI:10.1001/jama.1917.25910500001015]
22. Hafezi M, Attaran D, Mahmoudi M, Balali-Mood M. Late respiratory complications of mustard gas poisoning in Iranian veterans. Inhal Toxicol. 2005;17(11):587-92. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/08958370591000591]
23. Emad A, Rezaian GR. The diversity of the sulfur mustard gas inhalation or respiratory system 10 years after a single, heavy exposure: Analysis of 197 cases. Chest. 1997;112(3):734-8. [Link] [DOI:10.1378/chest.112.3.734]
24. Sabahi H, Vali M, Shafie D. In-hospital mortality prediction model of heart failure patients using imbalanced registry data: A machine learning approach. SCIENTIA IRANICA. 2023. [Link] [DOI:10.24200/sci.2023.61637.7412]
25. Evison D, Hinsley D, Rice P. Chemical weapons. BMJ. 2002;324(7333):332-5. [Link] [DOI:10.1136/bmj.324.7333.332]
26. Bullman T, Kang H. A fifty years mortality follow-up study of veterans exposed to low level chemical warfare agent, mustard Gas. Ann Epidemiol. 2000;10(5):333-8. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S1047-2797(00)00060-0]
27. James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. An introduction to statistical learning: With applications in R. New York: Springer; 2013. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-7138-7]
28. Murphy KP. Machine learning: A probabilistic perspective (adaptive computation and machine learning series). Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2012. [Link]