Abstract
Objective:
Intelligent computer systems are used in diagnosing Multiple Sclerosis and help physicians in the accurate and timely diagnosis of the disease. This study focuses on a review of different reasoning techniques and methods used in intelligent systems to diagnose MS and analyze the application and efficiency of different reasoning methods in order to find the most efficient and applicable methods and techniques for MS diagnosis.
Methods:
A complete research was carried out on articles in various electronic databases based on Mesh vocabulary. 85 articles out of 614 articles published in English between 2000 to 2018 were analyzed, 30 of which have been selected based on inclusion criteria such as system scope and domain, full description of reasoning method and system evaluation.
Results:
Results indicate that different reasoning methods are used unintelligent systems of MS diagnosis. In 27% of the studies, the rule-based method was used, in 20% the fuzzy logic method, in 18%the artificial neural network method, and in 35% other reasoning methods were used. The average sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of reasoning methods were0.91, 0.77, and 0.86, respectively.
Conclusions:
Rule-based, fuzzy-logic and artificial neural network methods have had more applications in intelligent systems for the diagnosis of MS, respectively. The highest rate of sensitivity and accuracy indexes is associated to the neural network reasoning method at 0.97 and 0.99, respectively .In the fuzzy logic method, the Kappa rate has been reported as one, which shows full conformity between software diagnosis and the physician’s decision .In some articles, in order to remove the limitations of the methods and enhance their efficiency, combinations of different methods are used.
Keywords: Decision Support Systems, Clinical Decision Support Techniques, Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Multiple Sclerosis
1. INTRODUCTION
Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a kind of chronic and progressive disorder in the central nervous system. This disorder creates a progressive disability, mostly afflicting young people (1-3). The diagnosis of this disorder is based on neurological background and physical examinations and there is no single diagnostic experimental method to prove it (4-9). MS diagnosis is complex because its signs and symptoms are widespread, having a similarity with the symptoms of other neurological and demyelinating disorders, infectious diseases, vascular diseases, inflammatory diseases, and metabolic genetic disorders (10-14).
Decision support systems and expert systems in the realm of medicine can help in diagnosing the disease by using data mining methods and artificial intelligence and also aid the diagnosis process based on parametric and non-parametric decision-making models (15-18).
The advantages of clinical decision support systems in diagnosing central nervous system disorders such as MS include: increasing reliability, increasing diagnosis accuracy, decreasing time loss, decreasing expenses, increasing access to expert neurologists, training inexperienced physicians and clinicians, helping researchers in studies associated with disorders of the nervous system, and eventually noticeable improvement in the quality of the care system and patient life quality (19-24).
Various studies carried out worldwide indicate that many researchers use different software techniques to solve the problems associated with diseases and nervous system disorders (19, 25).
Review studies on “Data mining in multiple sclerosis: computational classifiers. Introduction and methods”, ”soft computing techniques survey in neuroscience” and “Knowledge and intelligent computing system in medicine” have analyzed different reasoning methods such as statistical methods, different algorithms of the artificial neural networks, rule-based, case-based and a combination of different methods (26-28). A review study on “Fuzzy logic: A simple solution for complexities in neurosciences” has examined advantages and disadvantages of the fuzzy logic method in diagnosis, management and prediction of neurological disorders (29). Ina review study on “Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Diagnosis in Medicine…”,learning algorithms and different neural networks and their accuracy in diagnosing different diseases have been reported (30).
The aim of this study is to analyze applied reasoning methods and techniques in intelligent computer systems to help MS diagnosis. Findings of this research answer the following question: “Which reasoning methods and techniques are used nowadays to diagnose MS and how efficient and applicable is each method?”, in order to find the most applicable and efficient methods and techniques to diagnose MS.
2. METHODS
In order to carry out a systematic review study, the PRISMA protocol was used. The questions that have been answered in this study are: a) which methods of reasoning are used to diagnose MS in intelligent computer systems? b) To what extent is each reasoning method used to diagnose MS? and c) How efficient is each method in diagnosing MS?
A search was carried out among articles in electronic databases of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, Scopus and Google Scholar during January and February 2018. The search strategy was based on Mesh vocabulary and the combination of these words was done with logical operators, “AND” and “OR” in search phrases. 25 search phrases were used and 614 articles were selected that have been published in English between 2000 and 2018. First, the articles were screened based on title, abstract and objective of the study and their texts were retrieved. Then the whole text was analyzed and investigated and finally 30 articles were selected based on the inclusion criteria.
In this review study, articles having the following inclusion criteria have been selected: a) the intelligent system described in the article should being the domain of MS diagnosis and classifying its clinical types, b) The reasoning method of the system for the diagnosis of MS should be completely described, c) Those articles in which picture processing methods and DNA frequency processing have not been used, and d)The intelligent computer system of disease diagnosis has been evaluated and its results have been reported numerically or descriptively. Data extraction has been done based on research questions of the selected papers. These data include the author, publication year, system application, applied reasoning method used in the intelligent system along with the algorithm used, most evaluation parameters including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, area under the Receiver Operating Characteristics curve, efficiency and the amount of Kappa conformity that has been recorded in Tables 1 and 2. The calculation formulas for some of the evaluation parameters are as follows:
Table 1. List of Characteristics reviewed in selected articles.
| Developer | Year | Task | Reasoning methods | Algorithm/technique/model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge Based Methods | ||||
| 1. I. Galea (53) | 2015 | Prediction and diagnosis | Evidence-Based | —- |
| 2. Ahmad A. Al-Hajji (20) | 2012 | Diagnosis | Rule- based | Backward chaining |
| 3.Ayangbekun (21) | 2015 | Diagnosis and treatment | Rule- based | Backward chaining |
| 4.RajdeepBorgohain (22) | 2016 | Diagnosis | Rule- base | RETE algorithm |
| 5.AtulKrishan Sharma (19) | 2014 | Diagnosis | Rule-based | Backward chaining |
| 6.YC Cohen (32) | 2000 | Diagnosis and assessment of disability | Rule–based | Ambulation-based EDSS algorithm |
| 7.V.Kurbalija (33) | 2007 | Diagnosis | Case-based | Case Retrieval Net |
| 8.YelizKaraca (35) | 2014 | Diagnosis and prognosis of course disease | Model- based | Linear mathematical model |
| 9.M Daumer (34) | 2007 | Diagnosis and prognosis of course disease | Model- based | Matching Algorithm and OLAP-tool |
| Non-knowledge based methods | ||||
| 10.Mary F Davis (43) | 2013 | Diagnosis and prognosis of course disease | Natural language processing | Perl algorithm |
| 11.Richard E. Nelson1(44) | 2016 | Diagnosis and prognosis of course disease | Natural language processing | Perl algorithm |
| 12.Herbert S. Chase (42) | 2017 | Diagnosis and prognosis of course disease | Natural language processing | Definitive type 1, Definitive type 2,possible type 1, possible type 2algorithms |
| 13.V. Wottschel (30) | 2015 | Prediction and diagnosis | Support vector machine (SVM) | —- |
| 14.JM Nielsen (54) | 2007 | Diagnosis | Statistical analysis | Systematic approach |
| 15.Adrian Ion M_argineanu (51) | 2017 | Diagnosis | (1) Statistical analysis2) Support Vector Machines (SVM) | (1)Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) |
| 16.R. Linder (49) | 2009 | Diagnosis | (1)Artificial neural network (2) Statistical analysis | (1) Neural net clamping technique (2) Multiple logistic regression(MLR2 , MLR5) |
| 17.Yeliz Karaca (46) | 2015 | Diagnosis and prognosis of course disease | Artificial neural network | (1)Radial Basis Function (RBF)(2) Learning Vector Quantization (LVQ)3) Feed Forward Back Propagation(FFBP) |
| 18.YasharSarbaz (47) | 2017 | Diagnosis | Artificial neural network | multilayer perceptron (MLP) with Feed Forward Back Propagation(FFBP) |
| 19.Imianvan Anthony (41) | 2012 | Diagnosis | Fuzzy logic | Fuzzy cluster means(FCM) |
| 20.Ayangbekun (37) | 2015 | Diagnosis | Fuzzy logic | Mamedani inference model |
| 21..Ali Amooji (38) | 2015 | Diagnosis | Fuzzy logic | Mamedani inference model |
| 22.M.ArabzadehGhahazi (39) | 2014 | Diagnosis | Fuzzy logic | Mamedani inference model |
| 23.Massimo Esposito (40) | 2011 | Diagnosis | Fuzzy logic | Sugeno inference model |
| 24.G. Panagi (55) | 2012 | Diagnosis | (1)Genetic programming(2)Inductive machine learning approach | (1)Genetic algorithm(2)Decision tree |
| Compound methods | ||||
| 25.Bikram L.Shrestha (23) | 2008 | Diagnosis | Case-based and Rule-based | Backward chaining |
| 26. Shiny Mathew (24) | 2015 | Diagnosis | Case-based and Rule-based | Backward chaining and(1)Euclidean Distance2)Manhattan Distance(3)Mahalanobis distance |
| 27.Yijun Zhao (52) | 2017 | Diagnosis | Support vector machines (SVM)and Statistical analysis | Logistic regression (LR) |
| 28.Gabriel Kocevar (48) | 2016 | Diagnosis and prognosis of course disease | Artificial neural network andSupport vector machine (SVM) | Radial Basis Function(RBF) |
| 29.Bartolome Bejarano (45) | 2011 | Prediction and diagnosis | Statistical analysis andInductive machine learning approach and Artificial Neural Network | Naïve Bayes AndRandom decision-tree meta-classifier and multilayer perceptron (MLP) with Feed Forward Back Propagation(FFBP) |
| 30.Fanis G. Kalatzis (31) | 2009 | Diagnosis and prognosis | Fuzzy logic AndRule-based | Fuzzy cluster means(FCM) AndForward chaining |
Table 2. Efficiency Evaluation of intelligent systems for MS diagnosis.
| Reasoning Methods | Algorithm/technique/model | Indicator Evaluation result | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sensitivity | specificity | accuracy | AUC | Positive predictive value | Negative predictive value | Kappa | Precision | comments | ||
| Fuzzy logic | Sugeno model (40) | 0.87 | 0.7562 | -- | 0.85 | |||||
| FCM (41) | 1 | |||||||||
| Mamedani model (38) | increasing efficiency, | |||||||||
| Mamedani model (37) | accuracy is very good | |||||||||
| Mamedani model (39) | high performance | |||||||||
| Inductive Machine Learning (ML) Approach | Decision tree (55) | 0.93 | 0.97 | |||||||
| Genetic programming | Genetic algorithms (55) | 0.93 | 0.75 | 0.9 | ||||||
| natural language processing | Perl algorithm (43) | 0.94 | 0.81 | 0.9 | 0.88 | |||||
| Perl algorithm (44) | 0.94 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.82 | ||||||
| Definitive type 1, Definitive type 2, possible type 1, possible type 2 algorithms (42) | 0.95 | 0.89 | 0.94 | 0.89 | ||||||
| Artificial Neural Network | MLP (46) LVQ (46) RBF (46) |
0.96 0.91 0.99 |
||||||||
| MLP (47) | 0.97 | 0.82 | 0.92 | |||||||
| neural net clamping technique (49) | 0.92 | 0.63 | 0.84 | |||||||
| Support vector machine | ---(51) | BAR=0.85 | ||||||||
| ---(50) | 0. 77 | 0.66 | 0.71 | 0.7 | 0.74 | |||||
| Statistical analysis | MLR2 MLR5 (49) |
0.94 0.95 |
0.54 0.54 |
0.84M 0.86 |
||||||
| Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) (51) | BAR=0.87 | |||||||||
| Systematic approach (54) | - | - | - | High sensitivity and specificity | ||||||
| Evidence-Based | --- (53) | 1 | ||||||||
| Rule-based | Ambulation-based EDSS algorithm (32) | 0.69 | ||||||||
| Backward chaining (19) | . | Diagnosis of system near possible as a human expert | ||||||||
| Backward chaining (21) | Accurate result | |||||||||
| Backward chaining (20) | 0.8 | |||||||||
| RETE Algorithm (22) | Accurate result | |||||||||
| Case-based | Case Retrieval Net (33) | Successful diagnosis | ||||||||
| Model-based | Matching algorithm and OLAP-tool (34) | 0.95 | ||||||||
| Linear mathematical model (35) | 1 | |||||||||
| Compound methods | ||||||||||
| Case-based and rule-based | Backward chaining and (1) Euclidean Distance (2) Manhattan Distance (3) Mahalanobis distance (24) |
0.93 | 0.866 | 0.87 0.82 0.84 |
Mean Error Rate=13.23 Mean Error Rate=17071Mean Error Rate=13.23 |
|||||
| Backward chaining (23) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | High performance | ||||
| Support vector machine and Statistical analysis | ---- LR (52) |
0.86 | ||||||||
| Support vector machine and Artificial neural network | --- RFB (48) |
-- | -- | 0.91 | efficiency=0.69 | |||||
| Statistical analysis and Inductive machine learning approach and Artificial neural network | Naïve Bayes and Random decision and FFBP (45) | 0.93 | 0.86 | 0.8 | 0.9 | |||||
| Fuzzy logic and rule-based | Fuzzy cluster means (FCM) and Forward chaining (31) | highly accurate results | ||||||||
Specificity = TN / [TN + FP]. (2).
Negative predictive value [NPV]=TN/[TN + FN]. (4, 5).
3. RESULTS
Total amount of 614 articles were retrieved by using the applied search strategy in electronic databases (Figure 1), their titles and abstracts were analyzed, and 288 articles were selected. Their texts were completely analyzed, among which 30 articles with high quality were selected based on the inclusion criteria, with a complete description and explanation of the method design, software development and evaluation.
Figure 1. Flowchart of search strategy for selecting articles.

According to Table 1, different decision making methods have been used in reasoning motors of intelligent systems for MS diagnosis. These methods were divided in to two overall groups of knowledge-based and non-knowledge based. In some articles, integrated methods have been applied, such as integration of rule-based and case-based methods. Each reasoning method included different models and techniques.
According to Table 1, in 5 articles, the rule-based method with backward chaining techniques (19-21, 23, 24), forward chaining techniques (31), and RETE (22) and ambulation based algorithms (32) were used. According to Table 2, in article (32), the Kappa conformity rate between clinical decision support system diagnosis and physician diagnosis was equal to 0.69 and in article (24) the system diagnosis accuracy was 0.8. In three articles (19, 21-22), the evaluation results of the system were described by general phrases such as “accurate result” and the evaluation results of the efficiency of different techniques of this method were not comparable with each other.
In case-based reasoning, for solving new problems, previous solutions are adapted to solve similar problems, which is similar to the human intelligence process that uses his experiences for new problems. In article (9), the case-based method with “case retrieval net technique” was used and its evaluation results were described by the phrase “successful diagnosis”. In articles (34, 35), the model-based method was used. The Kappa parameter in this method is equal to 0.95 and 1, and according to the Landis and Coach interpretation table (36), complete conformity in physician diagnosis and the decision support system diagnosis is observed.
Fuzzy logic allows the software variables of the decision support system to be members of different sets, simultaneously and with different degrees. In 5 articles, the fuzzy logic method with Mamdani (37-39) and Sogno (40) fuzzy models and the fuzzy clustering algorithm (31, 41) were used. The parameters accuracy, specificity and AUC for the Sogno (40) fuzzy model and also the KAPPA parameter for the FCM algorithm in article (41) were calculated. For articles in which the Mamdani model was used, evaluation results of the system were reported qualitatively by phrases such as “accuracy is very good”.
Natural language processing is a tool for identifying vocabulary and their mapping to concepts. The medical records of patients’ progress are a big store of clinical data that are used in intelligent systems. This method has been applied in three intelligent systems, for which the applicable algorithm included: Definitive type1, Definitive type 2, possible type 1, possible type 2 (42) and PERL (43, 44). Table 2 showed that the efficiency scales of sensitivity and specificity and positive prediction value of these algorithms are very high.
The neural network method is obtained from biological characteristics of the human brain and the individuals reasoning method. In four articles, different neural network models were used such as MLP (45-47), LVQ (46), RBF (46,48) and neural net clamping (49). According to Table 2, the RBF neural network in article (46) had the highest accuracy. Also, the MLP neural network with the FFBP learning algorithm in the articles had very high sensitivity, specificity and accuracy.
The SVM method was applied alone in two articles and in combination with other methods in two other articles. This method is easy, but its average sensitivity and accuracy in articles (50, 51) was 0.7. In 6 articles, a combination of different reasoning methods have been used that included a combination of rule-based and case-based methods (23, 24), a combination of rule-based and fuzzy logic methods (31), a combination of artificial neural network, statistical analysis and decision tree methods (45) and a combination of SVM, statistical analysis and neural network methods in studies (48, 52). According to Table 2, the efficiency of combining reasoning methods was very high.
4. DISCUSSION
By applying different reasoning methods, intelligent computer systems help to diagnose MS more accurately. Each reasoning method has certain capabilities and limitations; hence yielding different efficiencies and applicability’s in the diagnosis of this disease.
The rule-based method is one of the best applications of disease diagnosis. This method manages well-defined problems with knowledge-based texts; however, it has limited flexibility. To overcome such a weakness, case-based methods are used. The case-based method is more suitable for domains in which rules and relations among parameters are unknown. The diagnosis of rare and complicated disorders like MS was one of these domains. In a review study on “Intelligent and knowledge-based computing systems”, benefits such as modularity and combination and overall description of the results have been considered for the rule-based method, and benefits such as ease of knowledge acquisition, learning from experiences, automatic system updating and error management have been mentioned for the case-based method.
Natural language expressions are ambiguous in the medical domain and are used abundantly. The existing uncertainty in this domain has resulted in complexity for the production of medical intelligent systems. Certainty factors and the method of confronting uncertainty are very important characteristics of the fuzzy logic method that have made it unique (56, 57). In review studies on “Fuzzy logic: A simple solution for complexities in neurosciences?” and “Intelligent and knowledge-based computing systems”, fuzzy logic was introduced as a solution for uncertainty problems and resulted in simplifying the knowledge presentation process and minimizing calculation complexities. Extracting knowledge and specifying fuzzy rules were difficult and tiresome, requiring a great amount of experience and skills.
Among the neural networks, FBP, LVQ, and RBF were increasingly being used to classify medical data. Learning algorithms in the neural network method are effective tools for calculating and data mining in education data and their generalization. In a review study on “Neural Networks for Medical Diagnosis”, it has been stated that this method has applications in domains in which system output is dependent on numerous unknown inputs. The neural network method was suitable for diagnosing MS because the diagnosis of this disease was done based on many decision parameters and these parameters were various in different patients. A review study on “Intelligent and knowledge-based computing systems” has reported on the limitation of non-clarity in the neural network structure.
The natural language processing method analyzes medical records and identifies MS patients in the primary steps of the clinical course of disease using simple algorithms. Moreover, this method increases diagnosis accuracy and the positive prediction value. However, classification models used well-defined signs and symptoms and did not benefit from terms existing in the clinical notes.
The genetic algorithm in a big and very complicated problem space is seeking for a correct and fast solution, while minimizing the problem space. This approach is applied repeatedly to extract characteristics and classifications. This algorithm requires much calculation and a large memory and may not find the most optimal answer.
Some intelligent systems used a combination of reasoning methods. Rule-based systems along with case-based systems completely simulate the decision-making process of the physician. Experts’ knowledge is a combination of objective knowledge obtained from the texts and subjective knowledge resulted from the individual’s experiences. Objective knowledge is in the form of rules and subjective knowledge includes a combination of cases. The combination of these two methods improved problem solving ability and diagnosis accuracy, simplified the extraction of knowledge, and increased the cost-effectiveness of the system.
Articles that applied the rule-based method have suggested that fuzzy rules and weighing out rules be used to solve the uncertainty problem, the combination that was used in the first article. A combination of neural networks, fuzzy logic and genetic algorithm help to minimize problem space complexity such as MS diagnosis with different signs and symptoms.
According to the results of this review, in intelligent systems of MS diagnosis, the rule-based method had the highest application. In 27% of the studies, the rule-based method was applied and then, in 20%of studies the fuzzy logic method and in 18% of the studies the neural network method was applied. In the rule-based method, the backward chaining technique, in the neural network method, the multilayer Perceptron network, and in the fuzzy logic method, the Mamdani fuzzy model was used for diagnosis. In a review study of “Intelligent and knowledge-based systems”, 35% of the studies also applied the rule-based method.
Table 2 shows that the model-based and evidence-based methods had the highest amount of efficiency among the knowledge-based methods. The Kappa variable for them was equal to one. According to interpretation of Kappa, Landis and Koch table (36), knowledge-based methods had good efficiency and the decision support system for MS diagnosis made decisions similar to an expert physician. In the fuzzy logic method, due to various efficiency evaluation scales, the Mamdania and Sogno models and fuzzy clustering algorithm efficiency cannot be compared in MS diagnosis.
Results showed that due to similarities in the nature of fuzzy logic and the medical domain, fuzzy systems were useful for MS diagnosis. In a reported review study on “Fuzzy logic: A simple solution for complexities in neurosciences?” fuzzy logic has been noticeably successful in diagnosis, management and prediction of neurological disorders.
In the neural network method, RBF and FFBP networks had the largest amount of efficiency incorrectly diagnosing MS. The RBF neural network automatically finds the relation between inputs and outputs and provides a correct classification of patient’s information. In a review article entitled, “Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Diagnosis in Medicine”,it has been noted that neural network efficiency is based on neural network model selection and selecting the learning algorithm and training data set and conformity between the network model and algorithm. The SVM method was less efficient compared to other methods because if the number of characteristics and signs and symptoms of a disease such as MS are high, they do not map the multi dimension space adequately enough. However, due to the simplicity of this method, it has been used alone and in combination with other methods.
The number of selected articles in this review article was limited due to lack of availability of the full texts. In addition, the calculated efficiency scales were different in various articles. On the other hand, in some articles, evaluation results of system efficiency have been described qualitatively with phrases such as “increasing efficiency” and “accuracy is very good”. Therefore, the efficiencies of some applied methods and algorithms were not comparable with each other.
Values recorded in Table 2 showed that the neural network method was more efficient than other reasoning methods in diagnosing MS. Generally, it can be concluded that today, reasoning methods have been highly efficient in diagnosing and predicting clinical MS and can be used in assisting the clinical decision support system to help physicians and patients in the correct and timely diagnosis of this disease.
It is suggested that these reasoning methods can be applied to intelligent systems to diagnose other brain disorders and to compare the results with each other. Nowadays, image processing methods, genetic data processing and analytical methods of the electroencephalogram have been applied in the diagnosis and prediction of this disease, and their efficiency results can be compared and generalized with the results of this review study.
5. CONCLUSION
The aim of this study was to provide a general viewpoint on the developments in different methodologies in the intelligent system reasoning of MS diagnosis. The rule-based method was more applicable than other reasoning methods due to its modularity and rule integrity in the knowledge-based system. Then, the fuzzy logic method was applied more due to its unique capability to solve uncertain problems and simplify the knowledge presentation process and minimize the calculation complexity for complex diagnosis of MS. In addition, the neural network methods were applied to diagnose MS due to their powerful calculation capability in a complex problem space.
All reasoning methods had a high efficiency in diagnosing MS, but the efficiency of these methods was different with regard to their characteristics. The neural network method had higher efficiency than other reasoning methods in MS diagnosis. The fuzzy logic method performed successfully in disease diagnosis due to its medical nature, particularly in neurological disorders. The Kappa scale value showed that there was complete conformity between the intelligent diagnosis system and expert neurologist diagnosis. The SVM method was less efficient for MS diagnosis than other methods because of its inaccurate mapping in large and complex problem space. Surely, all reasoning methods had some limitations. In the rule-based reasoning method, there was inflexibility and some problems in acquiring knowledge, and updating and maintaining it. The neural network method works like a black box and parameter specification requires a lot of experience for better performance. In the fuzzy logic method, knowledge extraction, set specification and fuzzy membership functions and fuzzy rules definition were difficult and exhausting. In order to overcome these limitations, a combination of these methods was used to improve the system ability in accurately diagnosing MS. In general, we can conclude that computer methods and techniques have the potential to be applied in clinical practices and research in MS and other neurological disorders.
Author’s contribution:
A.H,, F.A., S.M. and E.N. made substantial contribution to design and analysis of data and revised the article for important intellectual content. L.A., S.A. and E.N. made substantial contribution to acquisition of data and also L.A. drafting the article. A.H, F.A, and L.A. collaborated on designing and analyzing of data. Farkhondeh Asadi revised the article critically and also gave final approval of the version to be published in collaboration with Azamossadat Hosseini.
Financial support and sponsorship:
None.
Conflict of interest:
There are no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.Adamz R, Viktor M. Neurologic disorders. Tehran: Zoughi; 1991. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Soltanzadeh A. Neurologic disorders. Tehran Noor Danesh; 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Aghadjani R. Harrisonprinciples of internal medicine neurological disorders. Tehran: Ayandehsazan; 1991. 2005. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Fauci B, Kasper H, Longo J. Principles of Harrison’s internal medicine (Neurologic disorders) 17. Tehran: Argmand; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Olek MJ. Multiple Sclerosis Etiology, Diagnosis, and New Treatment Strategies. Humana Press Inc: Totowa; 2005. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Inglese M. Multiple Sclerosis: New Insights and Trends. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27:954–957. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Shannon M. A guide to best best practice multiple sclerosis specialist nursing in ireland. Porterhouse Medical. 2003:3–29. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Rolak LA, Fleming JO. The Differential Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. The Neurologist. 2007;13:57–72. doi: 10.1097/01.nrl.0000254705.39956.34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Scolding N. The differential diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001;71:9–15. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.71.suppl_2.ii9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.O’Connor P. Key issues in the diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2002;59:1–33. doi: 10.1212/wnl.59.6_suppl_3.s1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Christian C, Sandra V, Patrice A. Early clinical predictors and progression of irreversible disability in multiple sclerosis: an amnesic process. Brain. 2003;126:770–782. doi: 10.1093/brain/awg081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Conditions TNCCfC. Multiple sclerosis National clinical guideline for diagnosis and management in primary and secondary care. Royal College of Physicians of London. 2004:87–129. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Brownlee WJ, Hardy T, Fazekas FDHM. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: progress and challenges. The Lancet. 2016:16. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30959-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Solomon AJ, Klein EP, Bourdette D. Undiagnosing” multiple sclerosis. The challenge of misdiagnosis in MS. Neurology. 2012;78:1986–1891. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318259e1b2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Sim I, Gorman P, Greenes R, Haynes R, Kaplan B, Lehmann H. Clinical decision support systems for the practice of evidence-based medicine. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2001;8(6):527–534. doi: 10.1136/jamia.2001.0080527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Mendonça E, Jenders R, Lussier Y. Healthcare information systems. CRC Press LLC; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Coiera E. Guide to health informatics. 2nd, editor. Australia: Enrico Coieraed; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Berner S, Tonya J, Randolph AJK. Theory and Practice. 2. Springer Science+Business Media; 2007. Clinical Decision Support Systems. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Sharma A, Gupta S. Neurological Disorder Diagnosis System. international journal for research in applied science and engineering technology (I JRAS ET) 2014;2:296–302. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Al-Hajj A. Rule-Based Expert System for Diagnosis and Symptom of Neurological Disorders “Neurologist Expert System (NES) ICCIT. 2012:67–72. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Ayangbekun Oluwafemi J, Jimoh Ibrahim A. Expert System for Diagnosis Neurodegenerative Diseases International Journal of Computer and Information Technology 2015. 4:694–698. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Borgohain R, Sanyal S. Rule Based Expert System for Diagnosis of Neuromuscular Disorders. ResearchGate. 2012:1–5. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Badri A, Ansari H. Neurology Diagnosis System: Tribhuvan University. 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Mathew S, Hamed M, HandQadri I. A web based decision support system driven for the neurological disorders. International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science. 2015;3:777–792. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Sreekantha DK, Girish TM, Kulkarni RV. Knowledgebase systems in neuroscience–Astyudy. International Journal on Soft Computing, Artificial Intelligence and Applications (IJSCAI) 2015;4(2):1–11. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Bejarano B, Segura V, Villoslada P. Data mining in multiple sclerosis: computational classifiers. Introduction and methods (Part I) Revista Espanola de Esclerosis Multiple. 2013;25:5–15. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Sreekantha DK, Girish TM, Kulkarni RV. Survey of Soft Computing Techniques in Neuro Science. 2015:31–41. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Pandey B, Mishra RB. Knowledge and intelligent computing system in medicine. Computers in Biology and Medicine. 2009;39(3):215–230. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2008.12.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Godil SS, Shamim MS, Enam SA, Qidwai U. Fuzzy logic: A “simple” solution for complexities in neurosciences? Surgical neurology international. 2011;2:24. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.77177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.lin D, Vasilakos AV, Tang Y, Yao Y. Neural networks for computer-aided diagnosis in medicine: A review. Neurocomputing. 2016;216:700–708. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Fanis GK, Nikolaos GETP. 31 st Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS. Minneapolis, Minnesota USA: 2009. Developing a genomic-based point-of-care diagnostic system for rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis; pp. 827–830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Cohen Y, Hassin-Baer S, Olmer L, Barishev R, Goldhammer Y. MS-CANE: a computer-aided instrument for neurological evaluation of patients with multiple sclerosis: enhanced reliability of expanded disabilitystatus scale (EDSS) assessment. Multiple Sclerosis. 2000;6:355–361. doi: 10.1177/135245850000600511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Kurbalija V, Ivanović M, Budimac Z. Multiple Sclerosis Diagnoses - Case-Base Reasoning Approach. Twentieth IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS’07) 2007 [Google Scholar]
- 34.Daumer M, Neuhaus A, Lederer C, Scholz M, Wolinsky JS, Heiderhoff M. Prognosis of the individual course of disease–steps in developing a decision support tool for Multiple Sclerosis. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2007;7(1) doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-7-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Karaca Y, Osman O, Karabudak R. Linear Modeling of Multiple Sclerosis and Its Subgroubs. TJN. 2015;21(1):7–12. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Landis J, Koch G. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Ayangbekun OJ, Jimoh Ibrahim A. Fuzzy Logic Application to Brain Diseases Diagnosis. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences. 2015;6(3):144–148. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Amooji A, Esmaeilpour Mianji N. A Fuzzy expert system for diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis and Brain Tumor diseases International Research. Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences. 2015;9(11):2055–2059. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Arabzadeh Ghahazi M, Harirchian MH, Fazel Zarandi MH, Rahimi Damirchi-Darasi S. Fuzzy Rule based Expert System for Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. IEEE. 2014 [Google Scholar]
- 40.Esposito M, De Pietro G. An ontology-based fuzzy decision support system for multiple sclerosis. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence. 2011;24(8):1340–1354. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Agboizebeta IA, Chukwuyeni OJ. Cognitive analysis of multiple sclerosis utilizing fuzzy cluster means. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications. 2012;3(1):33–45. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Chase HS, Mitrani LR, Lu GG, Fulgieri DJ. Early recognition of multiple sclerosis using natural language processing of the electronic health record. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2017;17(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0418-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Davis MF, Sriram S, Bush WS, Denny JC, Haines JL. Automated extraction of clinical traits of multiple sclerosis in electronic medical records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA. 2013;20(e2):e334–340. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Richard EN, Jorie B, Joanne L. Determining Multiple Sclerosis Phenotype from Electronic Medical Records. Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy. 2016;22(12):1377–1382. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2016.22.12.1377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Bejarano BB Mariangela, Gonzalez-Moron D, Sepulcre J. Computational classifiers for predicting the short-term course of Multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurology. 2011;11(67):1–9. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-11-67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Karaca Y, Hayta Ş. The Significance of Artificial Neural Networks Algorithms Classification in the Multiple Sclerosis and Its Subgroups. Iarjset. 2015;2(12):1–7. [Google Scholar]
- 47.Sarbaz Y, Pourakbari H, Vojudi MH, Ghanbari A. Introducing a Decision Support System for Multiple Sclerosis Based on Postural Tremor: A Hope for Separation of People Who Might Be Affected by Multiple Sclerosis in the Future. Biomedical Engineering: Applications, Basis and Communications. 2017;29(06):1750046. [Google Scholar]
- 48.Kocevar G, Stamile C, Hannoun S, Cotton F, Vukusic S, Durand-Dubief F. Graph Theory-Based Brain Connectivity for Automatic Classification of Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Courses. Frontiers in neuroscience. 2016;10:478. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2016.00478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Linder R, Mörschner D, Pöppl SJ, Moser A. Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine. 2009;10(1):39–47. [Google Scholar]
- 50.Wottschel V, Alexander DC, Kwok PP, Chard DT, Stromillo ML, De Stefano N. Predicting outcome in clinically isolated syndrome using machine learning. NeuroImage Clinical. 2015;7:281–287. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2014.11.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Adrian I, Gabriel K, Claudio S, Diana MS. Classifying Multiple Sclerosis courses by combining clinical data with Magnetic Resonance metabolic features and lesion loads. Villeurbanne, France: Universit´ Bernard-Lyon INSA-Lyon; 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 52.Yijun Z, Brian CH, Dalia R, Charles RG, Rohit B. Exploration of machine learning techniques in predicting multiple sclerosis disease course. PLOS ONE. 2017 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174866. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Galea I, Lederer C, Neuhaus A, Muraro PA, Scalfari A, Koch-Henriksen N. A web-based tool for personalized prediction of long-term disease course in patients with multiple sclerosis. European journal of neurology. 2013;20(7):1107–1109. doi: 10.1111/ene.12016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Nielsen J, Moraal B, Polman C, Poppe P, de Vos M. Classification of patients with a clinically isolated syndrome based on signs and symptoms is supported by magnetic resonance imaging results. Multiple Sclerosis. 2007;13(6):355–361. doi: 10.1177/1352458506074684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Panagi G, Dounias G, Tsakonas A. Computational Intelligence Based Differential Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis and Cerebrovascular Disease. ResearchGate. 2012:1–8. [Google Scholar]
- 56.Semnani D. Fuzzy logic and neuro fuzzy sysyem and applications. Tehran: Nashr; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 57.Kia M, Emrani P. Fuzzy Logic Using MatLab. Tehran: Kian rayaneh Sabz; 2008. [Google Scholar]
