Journal of Medical Systems

, 39:138 | Cite as

Application of a Spatial Intelligent Decision System on Self-Rated Health Status Estimation

  • Alberto Calzada
  • Jun Liu
  • Hui Wang
  • Chris Nugent
  • Luis Martinez
Systems-Level Quality Improvement
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. UCAmI & IWAAL 2014

Abstract

Self- assessed general health status is a commonly-used survey technique since it can be used as a predictor for several public health risks such as mortality, deprivation, and fear of crime or poverty. Therefore, it is a useful alternative measure to help assessing the public health situation of a neighborhood or town, and can be utilized by authorities in many decision support situations related to public health, budget allocation and general policy-making, among others. It can be considered as spatial decision problems, since both data location and spatial relationships make a prominent impact during the decision making process. This paper utilizes a recently-developed spatial intelligent decision system, named, Spatial RIMER+, to model the self-rated health estimation decision problem using real data in the areas of Northern Ireland, UK. The goal is to learn from past or partial observations on self-rated health status to predict its future or neighborhood behavior and reference it in the map. Three scenarios in line of this goal are discussed in details, i.e., estimation of unknown, downscaling, and predictions over time. They are used to demonstrate the flexibility and applicability of the spatial decision support system and their positive capabilities in terms of accuracy, efficiency and visualization.

Keywords

Self-rated health Spatial decision support Rule-based systems Belief rule base Uncertainty 

References

  1. 1.
    Sugumaran R. and DeGroote J.P., Spatial Decision Support Systems: Principles and Practices. CRC Press, 2010.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ziersch, A., Neighbourhood ‘Social Infrastructure’ for Health: The Role of Social Capital, Fear of Crime and Area Reputation. In: Nriagu, J. O. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Environmental Health. Elsevier, Burlington, pp. 72–78, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Subramanyam, M., Kawachi, I., Berkman, L., and Subramanian, S. V., Relative deprivation in income and self-rated health in the United States. Social Science & Medicine 69(3):327–334, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van Jaarsveld, C. H., Miles, A., and Wardle, J., Pathways from deprivation to health differed between individual and neighborhood-based indices. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60(7):712–719, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benyamini, Y., Why does self-rated health predict mortality? An update on current knowledge and a research agenda for psychologists. Psychology & Health 26(11):1407–1413, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jerant, A., Tancredi, D. J., and Franks, P., Mortality prediction by quality-adjusted life year compatible health measures: findings in a nationally representative US sample. Medical Care 49(5):443–450, 2011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malczewski, J., GIS‐based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. Intl J. of Geog. Inf. Science 20(7):703–726, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thomas, C., and Humenik, N., GIS for Decision Support and Public Policy Making. Calif.: ESRI Press, Redlands, 2009.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun, R., Robust reasoning: integrating rule-based and similarity-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 75(2):241–295, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Angelov P. and Yager R., A simple fuzzy rule-based system through vector membership and kernel-based granulation. Proceedings of 2010 I.E. Intl Conf. on Intelligent Syst., pp. 349-354, 2010, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huysmans, J., Dejaeger, K., Mues, C., Vanthienen, J., and Baesens, B., An empirical evaluation of the comprehensibility of decision table, tree and rule based predictive models. Decision Support Systems 51(1):141–154, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calzada A., Liu J., Wang H. and Kashyap A., A novel spatial belief rule-based intelligent decision support system. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (IEEE SMC 2013), October 13-16, 2013, Manchester, UK: 639-644.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lloyd C.D., Local Models for Spatial Analysis, Second Edition. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, 2011.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calzada A., Liu J., Nugent C., Wang H., and Martinez L. (2014), Using the spatial RIMER+ approach to estimate negative self-rated health and its causes across Northern Ireland, Proceeding of the 8th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing & Ambient Intelligence (UCAmI 2014) & the 6th International Work-conference on Ambient Assisted Living (IWAAL 2014), Belfast, 2nd - 5th December 2014.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, J., Martinez, L., Calzada, A., and Wang, H., A novel belief rule base representation, generation and its inference methodology. Knowledge-Based Systems 53:129–141, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yang, J. B., Liu, J., Wang, J., Sii, H. S., and Wang, H. W., Belief rule-base inference methodology using the evidential reasoning approach – RIMER. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics – Part A 36(2):266–285, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yang, J. B., and Xu, D. L., On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics – Part A 32(3):289–304, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Calzada A., Liu J. and Wang H., A new dynamic rule activation method for extended belief rule-bases, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, accepted and in press, 2014.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    gvSIG Project, http://www.gvsig.org/web/home/, 2010.
  20. 20.
    Calzada, A., Liu, J., Wang, H., and Kashyap, A., A GIS-based spatial decision support tool based on extended belief rule-based inference methodology. Int. Workshop on Knowledge Discovery, Management and Decision Support (EUREKA2013), Mazatlán, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ripley B.D., Spatial Statistics. Vol. 575. 2005, Wiley-Inter Science.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Charlton M., Fotheringham S., and Brunsdon C., Geographically Weighted Regression. White paper. National Centre for Geocomputation. National University of Ireland Maynooth, 2009.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brunsdon, C., Fotheringham, S., and Charlton, M., Geographically weighted regression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician) 47.3:431–443, 1998.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anselin, L., Thirty years of spatial econometrics. Regional Science 89(1):3–25, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fotheringham A.S., Geographically Weighted Regression. The Sage handbook of spatial analysis, 243-254, 2009.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fotheringham, A. S., Brunsdon, C., and Charlton, M., Geographically Weighted Regression: The Analysis of Spatially Varying Relationships. Wiley, Chichester, 2002.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sheehan K.R., Strager M.P., Welsh S.A., Advantages of geographically weighted regression for modeling benthic substrate in two greater yellowstone ecosystem streams. Environmental Modeling & Assessment: 1-11, 2013.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Salvati, N., Tzavidis, N., Pratesi, M., and Chambers, R., Small area estimation via M-quantile geographically weighted regression. Test 21(1):1–28, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gao, J., and Li, S., Detecting spatially non-stationary and scale-dependent relationships between urban landscape fragmentation and related factors using geographically weighted regression. Applied Geography 31(1):292–302, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Arnio, A. N., and Baumer, E. P., Demography, foreclosure, and crime. Demographic Research 26(18):449–488, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tian, F., Qiu, G. Y., Yang, Y. H., Xiong, Y. J., and Wang, P., Studies on the relationships between land surface temperature and environmental factors in an inland river catchment based on geographically weighted regression and MODIS Data. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 5(3):687–698, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    NINIS (2013): The data used was obtained from the Northern Ireland Neighbourhood Information Service (NINIS), which is one function of the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA). The material featured on the NINIS website (www.nisra.gov.uk/ninis, last accessed 26, January, 2014).
  33. 33.
    LPS (2013): Land and Property Services (LPS) Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland® (OSNI®). This map is reproduced under the Northern Ireland Mapping Agreement (NIMA) reference MOU 203, which applies to non-commercial research published within the University of Ulster.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Calzada A., Liu J., Wang H., and Kashyap A., Uncertainty and incompleteness analysis using the RIMER approach for urban regeneration processes: the case of the Greater Belfast region. International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics (ICMLC 2012), 15-17 July 2012, Xian, China: 928-934.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alberto Calzada
    • 1
  • Jun Liu
    • 1
  • Hui Wang
    • 1
  • Chris Nugent
    • 1
  • Luis Martinez
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computing and MathematicsUlster UniversityNorthern IrelandUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of JaenJaenSpain

Personalised recommendations