Advertisement

A Transferable Belief Model Decision Support Tool over Complementary Clinical Conditions

  • Abderraouf Hadj HenniEmail author
  • David Pasquier
  • Nacim Betrouni
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10814)

Abstract

This paper presents an algorithm for decision support over two complementary clinical conditions given a large features data base. The algorithm is mainly divided in two parts, the first one aims at identifying relevant features from a large dimension data base using a heuristic method based on a discriminating power. The second part is a tool based on the Transferable Belief Model (TBM) which combines information extracted from the selected features to provide decision results with probabilities along with a result’s consistency measure so that decision could be made carefully. The proposed algorithm is tested on a downloaded feature data base. The TBM based decision support tool showed consistent results w.r.t provided outcomes by combining data from two relevant features identified after using the heuristic feature ranking method.

Keywords

Belief functions Transferable Belief Model Decision support Bio marker identification Data fusion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

First author would like to thank professor O. COLOT for his basic belief functions courses given at the university of Lille 1. Work of this paper has been funded by COL (Centre Oscart Lambret, Lille-France) during an internship in 2016.

References

  1. 1.
    Chen, X., Sun, X., Hoshida, Y.: Survival analysis tools in genomics research. Hum. Genomics 8(1), 21 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Delmotte, F., Smets, P.: Target identification based on the transferable belief model interpretation of dempster-shafer model. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. - Part A: Syst. Hum. 34(4), 457–471 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christin, C., et al.: A critical assessment of feature selection methods for biomarker discovery in clinical proteomics. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 12(1), 263–276 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parmar, C., et al.: Machine learning methods for quantitative radiomic biomarkers. Sci. Rep. 5, 13087 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang, J., et al.: A novel method to use fuzzy soft sets in decision making based on ambiguity measure and dempster shafer theory of evidence: an application inmedical diagnosis. Artif. Intell. Med. 69(Suppl. C), 1–11 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roe, K., et al.: Early prediction of response to radiotherapy and androgen-deprivation therapy in prostate cancer by repeated functional MRI: a preclinical study. Radiat. Oncol. 6(1), 65 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robert, J., et al.: Radiomics: Images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278(2), 563–577 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kumar, V., et al.: Radiomics: the process and the challenges. Magn. Reson. Imaging 30(9), 1234–1248 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foltz, W.D., et al.: Changes in apparent diffusion coefficient and t2 relaxation during radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 37(4), 909–916 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu, Z.G., Cheng, Y.M., Pan, Q., Dezert, J.: Sequential adaptive combination of unreliable sources of evidence (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garman, K.S., Nevins, J.R., Potti, A.: Genomic strategies for personalized cancer therapy. Hum. Mol. Genet. 16(R2), R226–R232 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jousselme, A.-L., Grenier, D., Boss, L.: A new distance between two bodies of evidence. Inf. Fusion 2(2), 91–101 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lian, C., Ruan, S., Denoeux, T., Vera, P.: Outcome prediction in tumour therapy based on dempster-shafer theory. In: 2015 IEEE 12th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pp. 63–66, April 2015Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lian, C., Ruan, S., Denœux, T., Li, H., Vera, P.: Robust cancer treatment outcome prediction dealing with small-sized and imbalanced data from FDG-PET images. In: Ourselin, S., Joskowicz, L., Sabuncu, M.R., Unal, G., Wells, W. (eds.) MICCAI 2016. LNCS, vol. 9901, pp. 61–69. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46723-8_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, W.: Analyzing the degree of conflict among belief functions. Artif. Intell. 170(11), 909–924 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smets, P., Kennes, R.: The transferable belief model. Artif. Intell. 66, 191–234 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ramasso, E., Panagiotakis, C., Pellerin, D., Rombaut, M.: Human action recognition in videos based on the transferable belief model. Pattern Anal. Appl. 11(1), 1–19 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shafer, G.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1976)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Straszecka, E.: Combining uncertainty and imprecision in models of medical diagnosis. Inf. Sci. 176(20), 3026–3059 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tessem, B.: Approximations for efficient computation in the theory of evidence. Artif. Intell. 61(2), 315–329 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abderraouf Hadj Henni
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • David Pasquier
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nacim Betrouni
    • 3
  1. 1.Cristal UMR CNRS 9189, University of Lille1Villeneuve d’AscqFrance
  2. 2.Department of Radiation OncologyCentre Oscar LambertLilleFrance
  3. 3.INSERM U1171, University of Lille2LilleFrance

Personalised recommendations