Volume 12, Issue 3 (2020)
Iran J War Public Health 2020, 12(3): 189-195 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2020/02/4 | Accepted: 2020/09/28 | Published: 2020/09/30
Received: 2020/02/4 | Accepted: 2020/09/28 | Published: 2020/09/30
Rights and permissions
1- Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran
2- Safety Response Regulation Research Center, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
3- Non-Communicable Diseases Research Center, Fasa University of Medical Sciences, Fars, Iran
4- Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Nursing, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
5- Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran, Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Mahdavi Street, Zanjan, Iran. Postal Code: 4513956111
2- Safety Response Regulation Research Center, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
3- Non-Communicable Diseases Research Center, Fasa University of Medical Sciences, Fars, Iran
4- Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Nursing, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
5- Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran, Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Mahdavi Street, Zanjan, Iran. Postal Code: 4513956111
Abstract (2223 Views)
Aims: The aim of this study was to separate the chemical victims of mustard gas into exposed to and non-exposed groups to sulfur mustard using classical discriminant analysis and two-state logistic regression and selection of the best analysis.
Instrument & Methods: The present study is a historical group that was conducted from 2005 to 2014. By observation method and systematic sampling, 284 people were included in the study including 216 people from Sardasht City as an exposed group and 68 people from Rabat City as a control group who were in all respects compared to the case group. Using classical discriminant analysis and logistic regression methods, 32 quantitative variables were examined and finally these two methods were compared using rock curve analysis. SPSS 21 software was used for analysis.
Findings: The 8 significant variables that had the highest ability to differentiate the groups (FEV1/FVC ratio, testosterone, cholesterol, phosphorus, conjugated bilirubin, red blood cell count, hemoglobin and hematocrit) were selected and entered into the main models. Using the rock curve, the cutting points of the variables were determined and the sensitivity and specificity values for discriminant analysis were 78% and 77.5%, respectively, and its sub-curved surface was 81.2%. In differentiating the groups, testosterone index was the strongest variable and conjugated bilirubin factor was the weakest variable. In logistic regression model, FEV1/FVC, testosterone and phosphorus ratio variables were significant (p<0.05). The sensitivity and specificity of this model were 80% and 75%, respectively, the rock curvature level was 81.4% and the value of R^2 was 0.308.
Conclusion: In the separation of chemical victims, the classical discriminant analysis and logistic regression methods have similar results, but discriminant analysis is a more appropriate model due to the presentation of the diagnostic function.
Instrument & Methods: The present study is a historical group that was conducted from 2005 to 2014. By observation method and systematic sampling, 284 people were included in the study including 216 people from Sardasht City as an exposed group and 68 people from Rabat City as a control group who were in all respects compared to the case group. Using classical discriminant analysis and logistic regression methods, 32 quantitative variables were examined and finally these two methods were compared using rock curve analysis. SPSS 21 software was used for analysis.
Findings: The 8 significant variables that had the highest ability to differentiate the groups (FEV1/FVC ratio, testosterone, cholesterol, phosphorus, conjugated bilirubin, red blood cell count, hemoglobin and hematocrit) were selected and entered into the main models. Using the rock curve, the cutting points of the variables were determined and the sensitivity and specificity values for discriminant analysis were 78% and 77.5%, respectively, and its sub-curved surface was 81.2%. In differentiating the groups, testosterone index was the strongest variable and conjugated bilirubin factor was the weakest variable. In logistic regression model, FEV1/FVC, testosterone and phosphorus ratio variables were significant (p<0.05). The sensitivity and specificity of this model were 80% and 75%, respectively, the rock curvature level was 81.4% and the value of R^2 was 0.308.
Conclusion: In the separation of chemical victims, the classical discriminant analysis and logistic regression methods have similar results, but discriminant analysis is a more appropriate model due to the presentation of the diagnostic function.
References
1. Belali-Mood M, Hefazi Mehrdad. A Review of the late effects of sulfur mustard gas poisoning. J Birjand Univ Med Sci. 2005;12(3 And 4):9-15. [Persian]
2. Somani S, Babu S. Toxicodynamics of sulfur mustard. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1989;27(9):419-35.
3. Be lali Mood M, Hefazi M. Comparison of early and late toxic effects of sulfur mustard in Iranian veterans. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2006;99(4):273-82. [DOI:10.1111/j.1742-7843.2006.pto_429.x]
4. Pauser G, Aloy A, Carvana M, Graninger W, Harrel A, Koller W, et al. Lethal intoxication by wargases on Iranian soldiers. Therapeutic interventions on survivors of mustard gas and mycotoxin immersion. Arch Belg. 1984;Suppl:341-51.
5. Sohrabpoor H. Observation and clinical manifestation of patient injured with mustard gas. Med J Islamic Rep Iran. 1987;1(1408):32-7.
6. Sega GA, Owens JG, Cumming RB. Studies on DNA repair in early spermatid stages of male mice after in vivo treatment with methyl- , ethyl- , propyl- , and isopropyl methanesulphate. Mutat Res. 1976;36(2):193-212. [DOI:10.1016/0027-5107(76)90007-5]
7. Klehr NV. Late manifestations in former mustard gas workers with special reference to cutaneous findings. Zeitschrift Hautkrankh. 1984;59(17):1161-4. [Germany]
8. Drasch G, Kretschmer E, Pharm M, Kauert G, Vonmeyer L. Concentration of mustard gas [Bis(2-chloroethylin) sulfide] in the tissues of a vesicant exposure. J Forensic Sci. 1987;32(6):1788-93. [DOI:10.1520/JFS11235J]
9. Belali Mod M, Hefazi M. The clinical toxicology of sulfur mustard. Arch Iran Med. 2005;8(3):162- 9.
10. Ghazanfari T, Faghihzadeh S, Aragizadeh H, Soroush MR, Yaraee R, Zuhair MH, et al. Sardasht-Iran cohort study of chemical warfare victims: Design and methods. Arch Iran Med. 2009;12(1):5-14. [Persian]
11. Ghaheri A, Faghihzade S, Ghazanfari T, Zayeri F, Sorosh MR. Fitting logistic model to some quantitative and qualitative variables to discriminate between mustard-exposed and non-exposedindividuals. Daneshvar Med. 2011;19(4):9-16. [Persian]
12. Kavei B, Fagihzadeh S, Eskandari F, Kazemnejad A, Gazanfari T, Soroush M. Studying the surrogate validity of respiratory indexes in predicting the respiratory illnesses in wounded people exposed to sulfur mustard. J Arak Uni Med Sci. 2011;13(4):75-82. [Persian]
13. Mousavi B, Soroush MR, Montazeri A. Quality of life in chemical warfare survivors with ophthalmologic injuries: The first results from Iran chemical warfare victims health assessment study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7(2):1-6. [DOI:10.1186/1477-7525-7-2]
14. Aram Ahmadi M, Bahrampour A. Comparison of logistic regression and discriminant analysis in predicting type 2 diabetes. Iran J Epidemiol. 2015;11(3):62-9. [Persian]
15. Antonogeorgos G, Panagiotakos DB, Priftis KN, Tzonou A. Logistic regression and linear discriminant analyses in evaluating factors associated with asthma prevalence among 10-to 12-years-old children: Divergence and similarity of the two statistical methods. Int J Pediatr. 2009;2009:Article ID 952042. [DOI:10.1155/2009/952042]
16. Worth AP, Cronin MTD. The use of discriminant analysis, logistic regression and classification tree analysis in the development of classification models for human health effects. J Mol Struct: THEOCHEM. 2003;622(1-2):97-111. [DOI:10.1016/S0166-1280(02)00622-X]
17. Nasiri M, Faghihzadeh S, Alavi Majd H, Kariman N, Safavi Ardebili N. Longitudinal discriminant analysis with random effects for predicting preeclampsia using hematocrit data. Prev Care Nurs Midwifery J. 2015;4(2):35-44. [Persian] [DOI:10.5812/ircmj.19489]
18. Sedehi M, Mehrabi Y, Kazemnejad A, Hadaegh F. Comparison of artifitial neural network, logistic regression and discriminant analysis methods in prediction of metabolic syndrome. Iran J Endocrynol Metab. 2009;11(6):638-46. [Persian]
19. Press SJ, Wilson S. Choosing between logistic regression and discriminant analysis. J Am Stat Assoc. 1978;73(364):699-705. [DOI:10.1080/01621459.1978.10480080]
20. Balakrishnama S, Ganapathiraju A. Linear discriminant analysis-a brief tutorial [Internet]. Mississippi: Institute for Signal and information Processing; 1998 [Cited 2018 October 1]. Available from: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/publications/reports/1998/isip/lda/lda_theory.pdf
21. AbdolmalekiP, Yarmohammadi M, Gity M. Comparison of logistic regression and neural network models in predicting the outcome of biopsy in breast cancer from MRI findings. Int J Radiat Res. 2004;1(4):217-228. [Persian]
22. Makian N, Almodaresi M, Karimi T. Comparison of artificial neural network models with logistic regression and discriminant analysis methods in predict of Companies Bankruptcy. J Econ Res. 2010;10(2):141-61. [Persian]
23. Mohseni Majd A, Ghazanfari T, Dilmaghanian R. Evaluation of serum and sputum level of il-21 in sardasht chemical victims and its relationship with long-term pulmonary complications (27 years after sulfur mustard exposure). Daneshvar Med. 2017;24(129):1-8. [Persian]