4.7 Article

The application of a decision tree to establish the parameters associated with hypertension

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.10.020

关键词

Data mining; Decision tree; Hypertension

资金

  1. Health Ministry of Iran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Hypertension is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The goal of this study was to establish the factors associated with hypertension by using a decision tree algorithm as a supervised classification method of data mining. Methods: Data from a cross-sectional study were used in this study. A total of 9078 subjects who met the inclusion criteria were recruited. 70% of these subjects (6358 cases) were randomly allocated to the training dataset for the constructing of the decision-tree. The remaining 30% (2720 cases) were used as the testing dataset to evaluate the performance of decision-tree. Two models were evaluated in this study. In model I, age, gender, body mass index, marital status, level of education, occupation status, depression and anxiety status, physical activity level, smoking status, LDL, TG, TC, FBG, uric acid and hs-CRP were considered as input variables and in model II, age, gender, WBC, RBC, HGB, HCT MCV, MCH, PLT, RDW and PDW were considered as input variables. The validation of the model was assessed by constructing a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: The prevalence rates of hypertension were 32% in our population. For the decision tree model I, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve (AUC value for identifying the related risk factors of hypertension were 73%, 63%, 77% and 0.72, respectively. The corresponding values for model II were 70%, 61%, 74% and 0.68, respectively. Conclusion: We have developed a decision tree model to identify the risk factors associated with hypertension that maybe used to develop programs for hypertension management. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据