Skip to main content
Log in

Intelligent System for Predicting the Feasibility of Using Computed Tomography

  • Published:
Scientific and Technical Information Processing Aims and scope

Abstract

This article describes the principles of creating an intelligent system using a JSM method of automated research support (JSM method ARS) to predict the feasibility of computed tomography application. The procedures of JSM research that are adopted to increase the reliability of the empirical regularities obtained in the system are described. The obtained empirical regularities and their expert ratings are given.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.

Notes

  1. The minimum hypotheses refer to the hypotheses such that no other hypothesis obtained consists of a subset of the features of these hypotheses. Formal description of minimum hypotheses is given, for example, in [14].

  2. 6In this case”, “–” designates the operation of Boolean difference.

REFERENCES

  1. Shesternikova, O.P., Finn, V.K., Vinokurova, L.V., Les’ko, K.A., Varvanina, G.G., and Tyulyaeva, E.Yu., An intelligent system for diagnostics of pancreatic diseases, Autom. Doc. Math. Linguist., 2019, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 288–294. https://doi.org/10.3103/s000510551905008x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vinokurova, L.V., Finn, V.K., Les’ko, K.A., Shesternikova, O.P., and Varvanina, G.G., First results of studying the capabilities of the intelligent system of automated research support in differential diagnostics of pancreas cancer, Materialy 47-i nauchnoi sessii TsNII gastroenterologii Gastroenterologiya v menyayushcheisya real’nosti (Proc. 47th Sci. Session of the Central Research Institute of Gastroenterology on Gastroenterology in Changing Reality), Moscow: Terapevticheskii Arkhiv, 2021, p. 93.

  3. Zhang, J., Zuo, Ch.-J., Jia, N.-Ya., Wang, J.-H., Hu, Sh.-P., Yu, Zh.-F., Zheng, Yu., Zhang, A., and Feng, X.-Yu., Cross-modality PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT imaging for pancreatic cancer, World J. Gastroenterol., 2015, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 2988–2996. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i10.2988

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Sostoyanie onkologicheskoi pomoshchi naseleniyu Rossii v 2019 godu (State-of-the-art of the Oncological Treatment to the Russian Population in 2019), Kaprin, A.D., Starinskii, V.V., and Shakhzadova, A.O., Eds., Moscow: MNIOI im. P.A. Gertsena, 2020.

  5. Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R.L., Laversanne, M., Soerjomataram, I., Jemal, A., and Bray, F., Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries, CA: A Cancer J. Clinicians, 2021, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baranov, A.A., Namazova-Baranova, L.S., Smirnov, I.V., Devyatkin, D.A., Shelmanov, A.O., Vishneva, E.A., Antonova, E.V., Smirnov, V.I., and Latyshev, A.V., Methods and tools of complex intelligent analysis of medical data, Tr. Inst. Sist. Anal. Ross. Akad. Nauk, 2015, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 81–93. https://doi.org/10.15690/vramn663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Luger, G.F., Artificial Intelligence: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving, Addison-Wesley, 2002, 4th ed.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Linden, A. and Yarnold, P.R., Using data mining techniques to characterize participation in observational studies, J. Eval. Clin. Pract., 2016, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 839–847. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yu, E., Wesselius, A., Sinhart, C., Wolk, A., Stern, M., Jiang, X., Tang, L., Marshall, J., Kellen, E., Van Den Brandt, P., Lu, C., Pohlabeln, H., Steineck, G., Allam, M., Karagas, M., La Vecchia, C., Porru, S., Carta, A., Golka, K., Johnson, K., Benhamou, S., Zhang, Z., Bosetti, C., Taylor, J., Weiderpass, E., Grant, E., White, E., Polesel, J., and Zeegers, M., A data mining approach to investigate food groups related to incidence of bladder cancer in the BLadder cancer Epidemiology and Nutritional Determinants International Study, Br. J. Nutr., 2020, vol. 124, no. 6, pp. 611–619. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007114520001439

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Khan, S., Mohan, H., Liu, Yi., Batchuluun, B., Gohil, H., Al Rijjal, D., Manialawy, Yo., Cox, B.J., Gunderson, E.P., and Wheeler, M.B., The discovery of novel predictive biomarkers and early-stage pathophysiology for the transition from gestational diabetes to type 2 diabetes, Diabetologia, 2019, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 687–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-018-4800-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Finn, V.K. and Shesternikova, O.P., The heuristics of detection of empirical regularities by JSM reasoning, Autom. Doc. Math. Linguist., 2018, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 215–247. https://doi.org/10.3103/s0005105518050023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Finn, V.K., Distributive lattices of inductive JSM procedures, Autom. Doc. Math. Linguist., 2014, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 265–295. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0005105514060028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pankratova, E.S. and Vinogradov, D.V., Formal description of adaptation of intelligent JSM-systems for clinical and laboratory data analysis, Autom. Doc. Math. Linguist., 2011, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 213–217. https://doi.org/10.3103/s0005105511050049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gusakova, S.M. and Mikheyenkova, M.A., Knowledge discovery as a tool for the formation of the structure of society, Autom. Doc. Math. Linguist., 2016, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 179–188. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0005105516050022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Klein, A.P., Pancreatic cancer epidemiology: Understanding the role of lifestyle and inherited risk factors, Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol., 2016, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-021-00457-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Midha, S., Chawla, S., and Garg, P.K., Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for pancreatic cancer: A review, Cancer Lett., 2016, vol. 381, no. 1, pp. 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2016.07.022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Finn, V.K., Exact epistemology and artificial intelligence, Autom. Doc. Math. Linguist., 2020, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 140–173. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0005105520030073

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by ongoing institutional funding. No additional grants to carry out or direct this particular research were obtained.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. P. Shesternikova.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Translated by L. Solovyova

Publisher’s Note.

Allerton Press remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

APPENDICES

APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Similarity Predicate Definitions

\(M_{{a,n}}^{\sigma }(V,W)\) (σ = +, –, 0, τ)| are minimal predicates that implement inductive inferences. They can be supplemented with more informative improvementsFootnote 26

Ban on counterexamples:

\({{(b)}^{ + }}\,\,\forall \,\,X\,\,\forall \,\,Y(((\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} V&X \end{array})\& {\text{(}}\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} W&Y \end{array})) \to \)\( \to ({{J}_{{(1,n{\text{)}}}}}(X \Rightarrow \,{{\,}_{1}}Y) \vee {{J}_{{(\tau ,n)}}}(X \Rightarrow \,{{\,}_{1}}Y))),\)\({{{\text{(}}b)}^{ + }}\,\,\forall \,\,X\,\,\forall \,\,Y(((\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} V&X \end{array})\& {\text{(}}\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} W&Y \end{array})) \to \) \( \to ({{J}_{{( - 1,n{\text{)}}}}}(X \Rightarrow \,{{\,}_{1}}Y) \vee {{J}_{{(\tau ,n)}}}(X \Rightarrow \,{{\,}_{1}}Y))),\)

\(M_{{ab,n}}^{ + }(V,W)\,\,\,\mathop \to \limits^ \leftarrow {\kern 1pt} M_{{a,n}}^{ + }(V,W)\& {{(b)}^{ + }},\) \(M_{{ab,n}}^{ - }(V,W)\mathop \to \limits^ \leftarrow {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} M_{{a,n}}^{ - }(V,W)\& {{(b)}^{ - }},\)

Method of difference:

\({{({{d}_{0}})}^{ + }}\,\,\forall \,\,X\,\,\forall \,\,Y\,\,\forall \,\,Z\,\,\forall \,\,U(({{J}_{{(1,n{\text{)}}}}}(X \Rightarrow \,{{\,}_{1}}Y)\) \(\& (W\,\,Y)\& (V\,\,X)\& ((X\,\, - V)\,\,Z)\) \(\& ((X\,\, - V) \ne \emptyset )\& \neg (V\,\,Z)) \to \) \( \to \neg {{J}_{{{\text{(1}}{\text{,n)}}}}}(Z \Rightarrow \,{{\,}_{1}}U) \vee \neg (W\,\,U))){{,}^{6}}\)

\({{({{d}_{0}})}^{ - }}\,\,\forall \,\,X\,\,\forall \,\,Y\,\,\forall \,\,Z\,\,\forall \,\,U(({{J}_{{( - 1,n{\text{)}}}}}(X \Rightarrow \,{{\,}_{1}}Y)\) \(\& (W\,\,Y)\& (V\,\,X)\& ((X\,\, - V)\,\,Z)\) \(\& ((X\,\, - V) \ne \emptyset )\& \neg (V\,\,Z)) \to \)\( \to \neg {{J}_{{{\text{(}} - {\text{1}}{\text{,}}n{\text{)}}}}}(Z \Rightarrow \,{{\,}_{1}}U) \vee \neg (\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} W&U \end{array}))),\)

\(M_{{ad0,n}}^{ + }(V,W)\,\,\, \leftarrow \to {\kern 1pt} M_{{a,n}}^{ + }(V,W)\& {{({{d}_{0}})}^{ + }},\) \(M_{{ad0,n}}^{ - }(V,W)\,\,\, \leftarrow \to {\kern 1pt} M_{{a,n}}^{ - }(V,W)\& {{({{d}_{0}})}^{ - }}.\)

Method of difference with a ban on counterexamples:

\(M_{{ad0b,n}}^{ + }(V,W)\,\,\, \leftarrow \to {\kern 1pt} M_{{a,n}}^{ + }(V,W)\& {{(b)}^{ + }}\& {{({{d}_{0}})}^{ + }},\) \(M_{{ad0b,n}}^{ - }(V,W)\,\,\, \leftarrow \to {\kern 1pt} M_{{a,n}}^{ - }(V,W)\& {{(b)}^{ - }}\& {{({{d}_{0}})}^{ - }}.\)

Appendix 2. List of Regularities Obtained

Signs and abbreviations:

• Ages are divided into decades: 3: 30–39, 4: 40–49, 5: 50–59, 6: 60–69, 7: 70–79, 8: 80–89;

• Alcohol (alcohol addiction) only has yes or no values;

• Tobacco smoking (tobacco addiction) only has yes or no values;

• Body mass index (BMI) has the following values: Below: below the norm, Norm: normal, Above: above the norm;

• The duration of the disease was compared across key points: 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years;

• Pain (severity of pain) has the possible values yes (severe pain) and no (mild pain);

• Diabetes mellitus (DM) only has yes or no values.

k is the number of “parents” of the hypothesis (examples that generate it).

If the corresponding regularity is generated by several strategies, the largest one was chosen (since the strategies by which the regularities were obtained in our experiments turned out to be comparable). Thus, each empirical regularity was assigned one rating.

Experiment 1. Positive regularities

b, Strab,ab

#

Age (decade)

Alcohol

addiction

Tobacco smoking

BMI

Duration

Pain > 6 (Strong)

DM

k

Expert’s rating

2105

   

Norm

<3 Years

Yes

 

17

3

2168

 

No

  

<3 Years

Yes

 

16

3

132

  

No

 

<2 Years

Yes

 

13

3

205

    

<1 Years

Yes

 

12

3

2114

5

   

<3 Years

Yes

 

6

3

3145

 

No

No

 

From 1 to 2 years

  

6

3

3321

6

   

<2 Years

Yes

 

6

3

2178

5

No

 

Norm

 

Yes

 

5

3

2538

5

No

   

Yes

No

4

3

2548

5

 

Yes

 

<3 Years

 

No

4

3

3028

5

   

From 1 to 3 years

 

No

4

3

3314

6

Yes

  

<5 Years

 

No

4

3

3315

 

Yes

  

<1 Years

 

No

4

3

9

 

Yes

No

 

<5 Years

Yes

No

3

3

1520

5

  

Norm

 

Yes

Yes

3

3

b, Strab,abd0

#

Age (decade)

Alcohol

addiction

Tobacco smoking

BMI

Duration

Pain > 6 (Strong)

DM

k

Expert’s rating

1537

5

No

   

Yes

   

a, Strab,ab

#

Age (decade)

Alcohol

addiction

Tobacco smoking

BMI

Duration

Pain > 6 (Strong)

DM

k

Expert’s rating

33

   

Norm

 

Yes

 

23

3

689

   

Norm

<2 Years

  

19

2

207

 

No

  

<2 Years

  

18

3

1089

  

No

  

Yes

 

18

2

1280

 

No

  

<5 Years

Yes

 

17

2

1832

  

No

 

<2 Years

  

16

3

1267

 

No

   

Yes

No

15

2

1837

    

<1 Years

  

14

3

795

5

   

<5 Years

  

9

2

794

 

Yes

 

Norm

<5 Years

  

8

2

1178

6

   

<5 Years

Yes

 

8

3

1428

5

     

No

8

2

2120

    

>2 Years

Yes

No

8

1

3618

6

   

<3 Years

 

No

8

2

1834

6

 

No

 

<5 Years

 

No

7

3

1644

 

Yes

No

   

No

6

2

2552

 

No

Yes

 

<3 Years

  

6

3

3609

6

  

Norm

<3 Years

  

6

3

69

  

No

Above

  

No

5

2

681

5

 

Yes

Norm

   

5

3

3411

4

 

Yes

 

>1 Years

 

No

5

1

2276

 

No

 

Above

  

No

4

1

3314

6

Yes

  

<5 Years

 

No

4

2

3424

4

Yes

  

>1 Years

  

4

1

n, Strab,abd0

#

Age (decade)

Alcohol

addiction

Tobacco smoking

BMI

Duration

Pain > 6 (Strong)

DM

k

Expert’s rating

23073

6

 

Yes

 

From 2 to 5 years

 

No

3

2

a, Strab,abd0

#

Age (decade)

Alcohol

addiction

Tobacco smoking

BMI

Duration

Pain > 6

DM

k

Expert’s rating

694

   

Norm

<5 Years

  

23

1

1265

 

No

   

Yes

 

21

2

257

 

No

  

<5 Years

  

20

2

4

  

No

   

No

19

1

802

  

No

 

<5 Years

  

19

2

2744

 

No

No

Norm

   

11

1

1843

6

   

<5 Years

 

No

10

2

2103

    

>2 Years

Yes

 

10

1

76

5

    

Yes

 

8

2

54

5

 

Yes

    

7

2

1274

4

   

>1 Years

 

No

6

1

2154

    

From 2 to 5 years

 

No

5

1

478

 

Yes

 

Above

>3 Years

  

4

2

3424

4

Yes

  

>1 Years

  

4

2

1724

   

Above

>3 Years

 

No

3

2

1286

4

 

No

 

>1 Years

  

2

2

Experiment 1. Negative regularities

a, Strabd0,a

#

Age (decade)

Alcohol

addiction

Tobacco smoking

BMI

Duration

Pain > 6

DM

k

Expert’s rating

69

3

   

>3 Years

  

7

2

353

  

No

 

>3 Years

  

7

2

269

    

>1 Years

No

Yes

6

3

546

 

No

  

>5 Years

No

 

6

3

308

5

    

No

 

3

3

399

4

  

Norm

>5 Years

 

Yes

3

2

267

6

  

Above

>1 Years

No

 

2

3

480

6

 

Yes

 

From 1 to 2 years

No

 

2

3

672

4

No

Yes

Norm

>2 Years

  

2

2

Experiment 1. Negative hypotheses that are not regularities

Strab,ad0

#

Age (decade)

Alcohol

addiction

Tobacco smoking

BMI

Duration

Pain > 6

DM

k

Expert’s rating

271

    

>1 Years

  

69

3

Strab,a

#

Age (decade)

Alcohol

addiction

Tobacco smoking

BMI

Duration

Pain > 6

DM

k

Expert’s rating

62

     

No

 

70

2

224

      

No

51

1

4097

   

Norm

   

47

1

4100

  

Yes

    

45

1

364

    

<5 Years

  

33

1

4108

 

Yes

     

33

1

1249

   

Above

   

25

1

1879

   

Below

   

8

1

Experiment 2. Positive regularities

a, Strab,ab

#

Age (decade)

Alcohol

addiction

Tobacco smoking

BMI

Duration

Pain > 6

DM

k

Expert’s rating

Present

in experiment 1

3315

 

Yes

  

<1 Years

 

No

4

3

Yes

a, Stra,ab

#

Age (decade)

Alcohol

addiction

Tobacco smoking

BMI

Duration

Pain > 6

DM

k

Expert’s rating

Present

in experiment 1

884

 

No

 

Norm

   

20

2

No

1103

  

No

Norm

   

15

2

No

2520

 

No

Yes

    

13

2

No

2101

 

No

  

>2 Years

  

12

2

No

1835

   

Norm

<1 Years

  

11

3

No

4010

 

No

    

Yes

9

2

No

1857

6

  

Norm

<5 Years

  

8

3

No

2728

   

Norm

<2 Years

 

Yes

8

2

No

1830

 

Yes

  

<1 Years

  

6

3

No

a, Strab,abd0

#

Age (decade)

Alcohol

addiction

Tobacco smoking

BMI

Duration

Pain > 6

DM

k

Expert’s rating

Present

in experiment 1

3145

 

No

No

 

From 1 to 2 years

  

6

3

Yes

3315

 

Yes

  

<1 Years

 

No

4

3

Yes

n, Strab,abd0

#

Age (decade)

Alcohol

addiction

Tobacco smoking

BMI

Duration

Pain > 6

DM

k

Expert’s rating

Present

in experiment 1

23055

5

 

No

Below

>1 Years

  

3

2

No

n, Stra,abd0

#

Age (decade)

Alcohol

addiction

Tobacco smoking

BMI

Duration

Pain > 6

DM

k

Expert’s rating

Present

in experiment 1

37

 

No

  

>1 Years

  

22

2

No

75

5

      

14

1

No

121

  

No

 

>1 Years

  

14

1

No

494

      

Yes

14

2

No

2520

 

No

Years

    

13

2

No

1855

6

   

<5 Years

  

12

3

No

486

   

Above

   

11

1

No

998

 

Yes

No

    

7

1

No

601

3

Yes

 

Norm

   

5

1

No

Experiment 2. Negative regularities

a, Strabd0,a

#

Age (decade)

Alcohol

addiction

Tobacco smoking

BMI

Duration

Pain > 6

DM

k

Expert’s rating

Present

in experiment 1

473

   

Norm

  

No

7

3

No

474

  

Yes

   

No

8

3

No

479

  

Yes

 

<5 Years

No

 

6

2

No

Appendix 3. List of Correct Predictions and Errors by Strategies for the Last Expansion

For experiment 1.

 

10

а

b

с

    
 

+

-

+

-

+

-

+

-

Strab,ab

8

3

 

3

2

1

1

2

Stra,abd0

11

  

9

    

Strab,bd0

10

  

4

  

1

5

Stra,ab

9

  

5

2

4

  

Strad0,ad0

 

9

5

 

3

 

3

 

Strabd0,ad0

 

9

8

   

3

 

Strad0,a

 

9

8

 

3

   

Strabd0,a

 

9

11

     

Strab,ad0

3

5

1

 

7

4

  

Strad0,ab

2

4

1

 

1

 

7

5

Strab,a

 

5

1

 

10

4

  

Strabd0,ab

 

4

2

   

9

5

Strad0,abd0

3

     

8

9

Stra,ad0

3

   

8

9

  

Strabd0,abd0

      

11

9

Stra,a

    

11

9

  

For experiment 2.

 

10

а

b

с

    
 

+

-

+

-

+

-

+

-

Stra,abd0

7

  

3

    

Strab,abd0

5

     

2

3

Strab,ab

4

1

1

 

1

 

1

2

Stra,ab

5

  

2

2

1

  

Strab,ad0

2

2

  

3

2

 

1

Strab,a

 

3

2

 

5

   

Strad0,a, Strabd0,a

 

3

7

     

Stra,ad0

2

  

1

5

  

2

Strad0,ad0, Strabd0,ad0

 

2

5

   

2

1

Strad0,ab, Strabd0,ab

 

1

2

   

5

2

Strad0,abd0, Strabd0,abd0

      

7

3

Stra,a

    

7

3

  

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shesternikova, O.P., Finn, V.K., Lesko, K.A. et al. Intelligent System for Predicting the Feasibility of Using Computed Tomography. Sci. Tech. Inf. Proc. 50, 464–474 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688223050131

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688223050131

Keywords:

Navigation