Skip to main content
Log in

Computer diagnosis of goiters. The optimal size of optimal subsymptomatologies

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer & Information Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Optimization for diagnostic recognition rate was performed for subsets of symptoms of various sizes. The diagnostic problem was the recognition and identification of thyroid diseases. Unbiased evaluation of performance was obtained and the extent of the bias in other evaluation methods was determined. Interdependence of symptoms was shown to be a negligible nuisance in the application of Bayesian inference to the present data. An optimal size of optimized subsets of symptoms was observed. A comparison with sequential diagnosis shows that the two procedures are different, although theyare related, and that the optimality of subsets is sensitive to departures from their composition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. A. Anderson and J. A. Boyle, “Computer diagnosis: statistical aspects,”Brit, Med. Bull. 24:230–235 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  2. N. T. J. Bailey, “Probability methods of diagnosis based on small samples,” inMathematics and Computer Sciences in Biology and Medicine (H.M.S.O., London, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. Bouckaert, “Computer diagnosis of goiters. III—Optimal subsymptomatoiogies,”J. Chron. Dis. 24:321–327 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  4. A. Bouckaert,“Computer diagnosis of goiters. I—Classification and differential diagnosis,”J. Chron. Dis. 24:299–310 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  5. A. Bouckaert, J. De Plaen, J. A. Kapita, and S. Ditu, “Statistical analysis of symptoms for the differential diagnosis of goiters,”Ann. Soc. Belge Med. Trop. 52:113–126 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  6. F. Burbank, “A computer diagnostic system for the diagnosis of prolonged and undifferentiating liver diseases,”Amer. J. Med. 46:401–415 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. F. Collen, L. Rubin, and L. Davis,“Computers in multiphasic screening,” inComputers in Biomedical Research, Vol. III (Academic Press, New York, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. L. Fleiss, R. L. Spitzer, J. Cohen, and J. Endicott, “Three computer diagnosis methods compared,”Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 27:643–649 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. C. Horrocks, A. P. McCann, J. R. Staniland, D. J. Leaper, and F. T. de Dombal, “Computer-aided diagnosis: description of an adaptable system, and operational experience with 2034 cases,”Brit. Med.J. 2:5–9 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  10. L. Kanal and B. Chandrasekaran, “On dimensionality and sample size in statistical pattern recognition,”Pat. Recog. 3:225–234 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  11. S. Koller, J. Michaelis, and E. Scheldt, “Untersuchungen an einem diagnostischen Simulationsmodell,”Meth. Inform. Med. 11:213–227 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  12. P. A. Lachenbruch, “Estimation of error rates in discriminant analysis,” Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA., Los Angeles (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Michaelis, “Zur Anwendung der Diskriminanzanalyse für die medizinische Diagnos-tik,” Habilitationsschrift, Medizinische Fakultät, Mainz (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  14. D. H. Moore, “Evaluation of five discrimination procedures for binary variables,”J. Amer. Stat. Ass. 68:399–404 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. F. Mount and J. W. Evans, “Computer-aided diagnosis. A simulation study,” inFifth I.B.M. Symposium (Endicott, New York, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  16. R. A. Nordyke, C. A. Kulikowski, and C. W. Kulikowski, “A comparison of methods for the automated diagnosis of thyroid dysfunction,”Comput. Biomed. Res. 4:374–389 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  17. C. A. Nugent, H. R. Warner, J. T. Dunn, and E. H. Tyler, “Probability theory in the diagnosis of Cushing's syndrome,”J. Clin. Endocrin. 24:621–627 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  18. P. Scheinok, “Symptom diagnosis, Bayes's theorem and Bahadur's distribution,”Biomed. Comput. 3:17–28 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  19. P. A. Scheinok and J. A. Rinaldo, “Symptom diagnosis: optimal subsets for upper abdominal pain,”Comput. Biomed. Res. 1:221–236 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  20. P. A. Scheinok and J. A. Rinaldo, “Symptom diagnosis: a comparison of mathematical models related to upper abdominal pain,”Comput. Biomed. Res. 1:475–489 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. W. Templeton, C. Jansen, J. Lehr, and R. Hufft, “Solitary pulmonary lesions,”Radiology 89:605–613 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. M. Vanderplas, “A method for determining probabilities for correct use of Bayes's theorem in medical diagnosis,”Comput. Biomed. Res. 1:215–220 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bouckaert, A. Computer diagnosis of goiters. The optimal size of optimal subsymptomatologies. International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences 3, 345–362 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00978979

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00978979

Keywords

Navigation