↓ Skip to main content

A Prognosis Tool Based on Fuzzy Anthropometric and Questionnaire Data for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Severity

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Systems, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
A Prognosis Tool Based on Fuzzy Anthropometric and Questionnaire Data for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Severity
Published in
Journal of Medical Systems, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10916-016-0464-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kung-Jeng Wang, Kun-Huang Chen, Shou-Hung Huang, Nai-Chia Teng

Abstract

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are linked to the augmented risk of morbidity and mortality. Although polysomnography is considered a well-established method for diagnosing OSA, it suffers the weakness of time consuming and labor intensive, and requires doctors and attending personnel to conduct an overnight evaluation in sleep laboratories with dedicated systems. This study aims at proposing an efficient diagnosis approach for OSA on the basis of anthropometric and questionnaire data. The proposed approach integrates fuzzy set theory and decision tree to predict OSA patterns. A total of 3343 subjects who were referred for clinical suspicion of OSA (eventually 2869 confirmed with OSA and 474 otherwise) were collected, and then classified by the degree of severity. According to an assessment of experiment results on g-means, our proposed method outperforms other methods such as linear regression, decision tree, back propagation neural network, support vector machine, and learning vector quantization. The proposed method is highly viable and capable of detecting the severity of OSA. It can assist doctors in pre-diagnosis of OSA before running the formal PSG test, thereby enabling the more effective use of medical resources.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 19%
Engineering 5 12%
Computer Science 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 12 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2016.
All research outputs
#15,362,987
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#660
of 1,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,095
of 298,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#16
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,150 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.