Cargando…

Building decision trees for diagnosing intracavitary uterine pathology

Objectives: To build decision trees to predict intrauterine disease, based on a clinical data set, and using mathematical software. Methods: Diagnostic algorithms were built and validated using the data of 402 consecutive patients who underwent grey scale ultrasound, followed by colour Doppler, sali...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Van den Bosch, T., Daemen, A., Gevaert, O., De Moor, B., Timmerman, D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Universa Press 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255509/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25489463
_version_ 1782347442169053184
author Van den Bosch, T.
Daemen, A.
Gevaert, O.
De Moor, B.
Timmerman, D.
author_facet Van den Bosch, T.
Daemen, A.
Gevaert, O.
De Moor, B.
Timmerman, D.
author_sort Van den Bosch, T.
collection PubMed
description Objectives: To build decision trees to predict intrauterine disease, based on a clinical data set, and using mathematical software. Methods: Diagnostic algorithms were built and validated using the data of 402 consecutive patients who underwent grey scale ultrasound, followed by colour Doppler, saline infusion sonography (SIS), office hysteroscopy and endometrial sampling. The “final diagnosis” was classified as “abnormal” in case of endometrial polyps, hyperplasia or malignancy or intracavitary myoma. “Pre-test parameters” included patient’s age, weight, length, parity, menopausal status, bleeding symptoms and cervical cytology; “post-test parameters” included ultrasound-, color Doppler-, SIS-, hysteroscopy- findings and histology results after endometrial sampling. Decision Tree #1 was built using both “pre-test” and “post-test” parameters; Tree #2 was only based on “post-test” parameters; Tree #3 was designed without using the hysteroscopy variables. The Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis (Weka) software was used for the development of decision trees. Results: All trees started with an imaging technique: hysteroscopy or SIS. The diagnostic accuracy was 88.3%, 88.3% and 84.0% for Tree #1, #2 and #3 respectively, the sensitivity and specificity was 95.5% and 82%, 97.7% and 80.0, 93.2 and 76.0%, respectively. Conclusion: The method used in this study enables the comparison between different decision trees containing multiple tests.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4255509
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Universa Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42555092014-12-08 Building decision trees for diagnosing intracavitary uterine pathology Van den Bosch, T. Daemen, A. Gevaert, O. De Moor, B. Timmerman, D. Facts Views Vis Obgyn Review Objectives: To build decision trees to predict intrauterine disease, based on a clinical data set, and using mathematical software. Methods: Diagnostic algorithms were built and validated using the data of 402 consecutive patients who underwent grey scale ultrasound, followed by colour Doppler, saline infusion sonography (SIS), office hysteroscopy and endometrial sampling. The “final diagnosis” was classified as “abnormal” in case of endometrial polyps, hyperplasia or malignancy or intracavitary myoma. “Pre-test parameters” included patient’s age, weight, length, parity, menopausal status, bleeding symptoms and cervical cytology; “post-test parameters” included ultrasound-, color Doppler-, SIS-, hysteroscopy- findings and histology results after endometrial sampling. Decision Tree #1 was built using both “pre-test” and “post-test” parameters; Tree #2 was only based on “post-test” parameters; Tree #3 was designed without using the hysteroscopy variables. The Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis (Weka) software was used for the development of decision trees. Results: All trees started with an imaging technique: hysteroscopy or SIS. The diagnostic accuracy was 88.3%, 88.3% and 84.0% for Tree #1, #2 and #3 respectively, the sensitivity and specificity was 95.5% and 82%, 97.7% and 80.0, 93.2 and 76.0%, respectively. Conclusion: The method used in this study enables the comparison between different decision trees containing multiple tests. Universa Press 2009 /pmc/articles/PMC4255509/ /pubmed/25489463 Text en Copyright: © 2009 Facts, Views & Vision http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Van den Bosch, T.
Daemen, A.
Gevaert, O.
De Moor, B.
Timmerman, D.
Building decision trees for diagnosing intracavitary uterine pathology
title Building decision trees for diagnosing intracavitary uterine pathology
title_full Building decision trees for diagnosing intracavitary uterine pathology
title_fullStr Building decision trees for diagnosing intracavitary uterine pathology
title_full_unstemmed Building decision trees for diagnosing intracavitary uterine pathology
title_short Building decision trees for diagnosing intracavitary uterine pathology
title_sort building decision trees for diagnosing intracavitary uterine pathology
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255509/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25489463
work_keys_str_mv AT vandenboscht buildingdecisiontreesfordiagnosingintracavitaryuterinepathology
AT daemena buildingdecisiontreesfordiagnosingintracavitaryuterinepathology
AT gevaerto buildingdecisiontreesfordiagnosingintracavitaryuterinepathology
AT demoorb buildingdecisiontreesfordiagnosingintracavitaryuterinepathology
AT timmermand buildingdecisiontreesfordiagnosingintracavitaryuterinepathology