两种反向传播网络测试方法在抑郁症中医证型分类中的对比研究

作者	单位
唐凤英	中南大学湘雅医院中西医结合研究所长沙410008
胡随瑜	中南大学湘雅医院中西医结合研究所长沙410008
喻长远	中南大学湘雅医院中西医结合研究所长沙410008
谢雄伟	中南大学湘雅医院中西医结合研究所长沙410008

摘要点击次数: 1357

全文下载次数: 3

中文摘要:

目的比较两种反向传播(back propagation,BP)网络测试方法在抑郁症5种中医证型分类中的作用。方法(1)交叉训练测试法:将1731例抑郁症患者随机分成两组,轮流进行训练和测试。(2)Round-Robin法:从1731例抑郁症中抽取1例测试,1730例训练,测试完成后,该例患者加入训练集,从训练集中另取1例测试,如此循环更替,直至完成1731例样本的测试。结果BP网络两种测试方法训练总体敏感度分别为97.9%和98.2%,测试总体敏感度分别为72.7%及74.2%。结论(1)BP网络两种测试方法均能较好地区分抑郁症5种中医证型,在中医证型分类识别中有一定价值。(2)Round-Robin法敏感度略高于交叉训练测试法,但差异无显著性。

英文摘要:

ObjectiveTo compare the effect of the two methods of back propagation network (BPN) test on TCM syndrome typing of depression. Methods Test was carried out by two methods as following: (1) Cross tr ain-test method: 1731 patients with depression typed to 5 syndrome types were randomly divided into 2 groups, and they were trained and tested in turn; (2) Round-Robin method: Test was conducted in an al t ered cycle mode, that is, in a cycle, one out of the 1731 patients were select ed to be tested, while the others were trained, the next cycle started when the test on the selected patient was finished and another one for test was sele cted. In this way, one cycle after the other, until all patients had been tested . Results The total training sensitivity of the two methods was 97.9% and 98.2% respectively, and the total testing sensitivity was 72.7 % and 74.2% respectively. Conclusion(1) The five TCM syndrome t ypes of depression could be well differentiated by BPN, which is valuable for TCM syndrome typing in certain extent; (2) The sensitivity of Round-Robin method is slightly higher than that of Cross train-te st method, but in comparison between them no remarkable significan ce was shown.

关闭