JVDI Advertisement
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hotz, C.
Right arrow Articles by Christopher, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hotz, C.
Right arrow Articles by Christopher, M.
Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, Vol 17, Issue 2, 158-164
Copyright © 2005 by American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians


Articles

Comparative analysis of expert and machine-learning methods for classification of body cavity effusions in companion animals

CS Hotz, SJ Templeton, and MM Christopher

Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.

A rule-based expert system using CLIPS programming language was created to classify body cavity effusions as transudates, modified transudates, exudates, chylous, and hemorrhagic effusions. The diagnostic accuracy of the rule-based system was compared with that produced by 2 machine-learning methods: Rosetta, a rough sets algorithm and RIPPER, a rule-induction method. Results of 508 body cavity fluid analyses (canine, feline, equine) obtained from the University of California-Davis Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital computerized patient database were used to test CLIPS and to test and train RIPPER and Rosetta. The CLIPS system, using 17 rules, achieved an accuracy of 93.5% compared with pathologist consensus diagnoses. Rosetta accurately classified 91% of effusions by using 5,479 rules. RIPPER achieved the greatest accuracy (95.5%) using only 10 rules. When the original rules of the CLIPS application were replaced with those of RIPPER, the accuracy rates were identical. These results suggest that both rule-based expert systems and machine-learning methods hold promise for the preliminary classification of body fluids in the clinical laboratory.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc.