Cited by 79Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareFuzzy Logic and Control SystemsInnovation in Digital Healthcare Systems

An Ontology-Based Interpretable Fuzzy Decision Support System for Diabetes Diagnosis

Open access
El-Sappagh, Shaker, Alonso, Jose M., Ali, Farman, Ali, Amjad, Jang, Jun-Hyeog, Kwak, Kyung-Sup·2018·IEEE Access

Abstract

Diabetes is a serious chronic disease. The importance of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) to diagnose diabetes has led to extensive research efforts to improve the accuracy, applicability, interpretability, and interoperability of these systems. However, this problem continues to require optimization. Fuzzy rule-based systems are suitable for the medical domain, where interpretability is a main concern. The medical domain is data-intensive, and using electronic health record data to build the FRBS knowledge base and fuzzy sets is critical. Multiple variables are frequently required to determine a correct and personalized diagnosis, which usually makes it difficult to arrive at accurate and timely decisions. In this paper, we propose and implement a new semantically interpretable FRBS framework for diabetes diagnosis. The framework uses multiple aspects of knowledge-fuzzy inference, ontology reasoning, and a fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) to provide a more intuitive and accurate design. First, we build a two-layered hierarchical and interpretable FRBS; then, we improve this by integrating an ontology reasoning process based on SNOMED CT standard ontology. We incorporate FAHP to determine the relative medical importance of each sub-FRBS. The proposed system offers numerous unique and critical improvements regarding the implementation of an accurate, dynamic, semantically intelligent, and interpretable CDSS. The designed system considers the ontology semantic similarity of diabetes complications and symptoms concepts in the fuzzy rules' evaluation process. The framework was tested using a real data set, and the results indicate how the proposed system helps physicians and patients to accurately diagnose diabetes mellitus.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2018.2852004

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
El-Sappagh, S., Alonso, J. M., Ali, F., Ali, A., Jang, J.-H., & Kwak, K.-S.
Affiliations
Inha University (KR)
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2018
Volume
6
Pages
37371-37394
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2874411262
Cited by
79
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3
FWCI
12.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion)
  • Repositorio institucional da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (University of Santiago de Compostela) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017R1A2B2012337)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Fuzzy Logic and Control Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Innovation in Digital Healthcare Systems
Keywords
diabetes diagnosis, clinical decision support systems, fuzzy rule-based systems, interpretability, ontology reasoning, SNOMED CT, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, electronic health records, diabetes mellitus, diabetes complications, semantic similarity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review