Download Disease Prediction Based on Prior Knowledge

Disease Prediction Based on
Prior Knowledge
Gregoe Stiglic, Igor Pernek, Peter Kokol
Facuty of Health Sciences
University of Maribor
Slovania
Zoran Obradovic
Center for Information Science and
Technology, Temple University,
Philadelphia, USA
ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Health Informatics
(HI-KDD 2012)
August 12, 2012
Outline
Background
Objectives
Evolution
Disease networks
SVM
Experimental setup
Class-imbalanced data
Classification
Experiments
Stability
Background
Patient
Name
asthma
Blood
Pressure
Prostate
Cancer
Diabetes
Heart
Failure
Michael
1
1
0
0
?
Objectives
 Using prior knowledge from human disease networks to
lower the burden of building classifiers
 Estimation of disease risk from hospital discharge data
optimally
 Enhancing Support Vector Machine – Recursive Feature
Elimination(SVM-RFE) approach to Support Vector MachineReweighted Recursive Feature Elimination (SVM-RRFE)
Evolution
1. Bringing health data into digital form
2. Increasing acceptance of electronic health
records (comparing patients)
3. Constructing disease related networks
4. Increasing amount of studies in the
application of data mining approaches in this
field
Methods of integrating network knowledge
Network centric:
 focuses on mapping gene/disease expression data
onto a network and uses techniques from network
analysis to select the important genes/diseases.
Data centric:
 Focuses on machine learning techniques where
prior knowledge from biological networks is used
to bias the feature selection process toward
strongly connected genes/diseases. (Such as SVMRRFE)
SVM
 SVM used for classification
and constructs a
hyperplane or sets of
hyperplanes in high
dimensional space which
divide data to two
separate classes.
 Hyperplane should divide
the classes with the largest
distance to the nearest
training data point of any
class.
Two basic concepts that are used
when constructing disease networks
Morbidity:
• Represents the support for a single diagnosis in
the given population.
Co-morbidity:
• Represents the support for co-occurrence of two
diseases.
common measures for calculating relations
Weight:
SVM-RFE
Relative Risk:
SVM-RRFE
Phi:
Experimental setup
Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS)
• 20% of US hospitals
Data for the adult population from year 2008 for network
construction.
Data for the adult population from year 2009 for model
evaluation.
6,840,196 discharge records in 2008.
6,546,273 discharge records in 2009.
Experimental setup
Each record contains:
Personal characteristics of a patient
• Age
• Gender
• Race
Administrative information:
• Length of stay
• Discharge status
Medical information:
• Diagnoses codes (ICD-9-CM)
• Surgical and nonsurgical procedures
Experimental setup
 ICD-9-CM:
• The International Classification of Diseases, 9th
Revision, Clinical modification.
• Uses taxonomy of 5-digit codes.
• First 3 digits represent the general diagnosis
• 2 additional digits describe more detailed subgroup
of the general diagnosis.
 14,000 diagnosis codes in dataset
 After removing the codes that were not used in data
from 2009, there are 11,170 codes.
Experimental setup
Age group frequency for both 2008 and 2009
Experimental setup
Elimination of rare diagnosis with prevalence less than 1%
Ranking all diagnosis codes
Choosing 5 diagnosis with closest prevalence to 20, 10, 5, 2, and 1%
Class-imbalanced data
This problem occurs when we have a dataset with
a small number of positive (target class) samples
and a much larger number of negative samples.
Solutions:
• Undersampling
• Oversampling
After balancing, classification performance increases.
Experimental setup
Repeated random subsampling:
• Selecting 10,000 samples randomly in each iteration for
testing
• In the first experience in training, they use train set with
balanced samples.
• In the second experience in training, they use train set
that 75% of its samples are positive and 25% of samples
are negative.
• Each random subsampling evaluation was repeated 10
times for all target diagnosis codes.
Experimental setup
Feature elimination:
• In first experience, they eliminate 10% of low impact
features (those with the lowest RR measure) in each
iteration.
• In second experience, they eliminate 50% of low
impact features in each iteration.
Experimental setup
Balanced Subsampling(50% positive – 50% negative)
• Feature elimination with 10% removal rate
• Feature elimination with 50% removal rate
Imbalanced subsampling(75% positive – 25% negative)
• Feature elimination with 10% removal rate
• Feature elimination with 50% removal rate
dataset
Subsampling (repeated 10 times)
test set
train set
Feature elimination
remove 10 or
50 percent of
low impact
features
sort
features
train SVM
yes
are
features
left?
no
test final
model
Classification
Comparison of AUC for SVM-RRFE and SVM-RFE with 10% removal rate.
Classification
Comparison of AUC for SVM-RRFE and SVM-RFE with 50% removal rate.
Experiments
 In the case of hospital discharge classification, it is crucial to
use less complex and faster methods. So here the case of 50%
removal rate, improves the performance of classification.
 In the case of 10% removal rate, the differences in AUC
between RFE and RRFE is not significant, but in the case of 50%
removal it is significant.
 Testing RRFE on another large dataset from 2000 to 2008
shows that a larger network does not produce significantly
better results in classification performance.
 Using less complex and more recent disease network does not
significantly impact the classification performance.
Stability
Frequency of disease code selection in the optimal feature sets for Hyperlipidemia
(272.4) classification.
Conclusion
Adaptation of the RRFE method for feature selection
in imbalanced high-dimensional hospital discharge
data.
Observe significant improvements of classification
performance when large batches of features are
eliminated.
After evaluation of classification performance of the
proposed solution, it would be possible to use it in
combination with another classification model.