• Home
  • Search
  • Optimality Assessments of Classifiers on Single and Multi-labelled Obstetrics Outcome Classification Problems
  • Cite Icon7
  • https://doi.org/10.14569/ijacsa.2021.0120260Copy DOI Icon

Optimality Assessments of Classifiers on Single and Multi-labelled Obstetrics Outcome Classification Problems

Show More
  • Abstract
  • PDF
  • Literature Map
  • References
  • Citations
  • Similar Papers
Abstract

It is indisputable that clinicians cannot exactly state the outcome of pregnancies through conventional knowledge and methods even as the surge in human knowledge continues. Hence, several computational techniques have been adapted for precise pregnancy outcome (PO) prediction. Obstetric datasets for PO determination exist as single label learning (SLL), multi-label learning (MLL) and multi-target (MTP) problems. There is however no single classifier recommended to optimally satisfy the needs of all the classification types. This work therefore identifies six widely used PO classifiers and investigates their performances in all three classification categories; to find the best performing classifier. Obstetric dataset exposed to input rank analysis via Principal component Analysis, produced thirteen (13) significant features for the experiment. Accuracy, F1-measure and build/test time were used as evaluation metrics. Decision tree (DT) had an average accuracy and F1 score of 89.23% and 88.23% respectively, with 1.0 average rank. Under MLL configuration, average accuracy (91.71%) and F1 score (94.28%) were highest in the random forest (RF) which had a 1.0 average test time rank. Using MTP, DT had an average accuracy of 88.80% and average F1 score of 71.13%, the multi-layered perceptron (MLP) had the best time cost with an average rank value of 2.0. From the results, RF is most optimal in terms of accuracy and average rank value, while DT is the most efficient in terms of time cost. The comparative analysis of global averages of the six base classifiers shows that RF is the most optimal algorithm with an average accuracy of 87.3% given all three data setups in the study. MLP on the other hand had an unexpectedly high time cost, making it unsuitable for similar data classifications if time is the main criterion. It is recommended that the choice of the classifier should either be RF or DT depending on the application domain and whether or not time cost is a major consideration.

Loading PDF

Similar Papers
  • Research Article
  • Citations8

A deep learning approach for gastroscopic manifestation recognition based on Kyoto Gastritis Score

  • Nov 05, 2024
  • Annals of Medicine
  • Ao Liu +7
  • Research Article

Audio Based Speech Emotion Prediction Using CNN Algorithm

  • Mar 20, 2025
  • INTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
  • Mrs A Jeevarathinam
  • Research Article

Developing a multi-label learning model to predict major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with unstable angina pectoris: A prospective cohort study.

  • Nov 01, 2025
  • International journal of medical informatics
  • Jing Li +5
  • Research Article
  • Citations2

Hybrid Deep Learning Approach For Stress Detection Model Through Speech Signal

  • Dec 31, 2023
  • JOIV : International Journal on Informatics Visualization
  • Phie Chyan +3
  • PDF
  • Research Article
  • Citations22

Use of machine learning models in condition monitoring of abrasive belt in robotic arm grinding process

  • May 18, 2024
  • Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing
  • Mochamad Denny Surindra +8
  • Conference Article
  • Citations5

Systematic Consequence of Different Splitting Indices on the Classification Performance of Random Decision Forest

  • Jun 24, 2022
  • Ifra Altaf +2
  • Research Article
  • Citations98

Predictive Utility of a Machine Learning Algorithm in Estimating Mortality Risk in Cardiac Surgery

  • Nov 07, 2019
  • The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
  • Arman Kilic +7
  • Research Article
  • Citations2

Dual-pathway EEG model with channel attention for virtual reality motion sickness detection.

  • Jun 01, 2025
  • Journal of neuroscience methods
  • Chengcheng Hua +7
  • Research Article
  • Citations11

Matched Filter Interpretation of CNN Classifiers with Application to HAR.

  • Oct 21, 2022
  • Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
  • Mohammed M Farag
  • Research Article
  • Citations1

COS-DeformDeep: Adaptive 2T2D spectral feature extraction method for improving the component identification performance in mixtures based on handheld Raman technology.

  • Apr 01, 2025
  • Analytica chimica acta
  • Xin Zhao +4
  • PDF
  • Research Article
  • Citations2

Synthetic seed production in Crataegus monogyna L. and prediction of regeneration of synthetic seeds with machine learning algorithms

  • Apr 01, 2025
  • Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC)
  • Metin Koçak +4
  • PDF
  • Research Article
  • Citations96

Evaluating the Utility of a Large Language Model in Answering Common Patients’ Gastrointestinal Health-Related Questions: Are We There Yet?

  • Jun 02, 2023
  • Diagnostics
  • Adi Lahat +4
  • PDF
  • Research Article
  • Citations33

Forest Land Resource Information Acquisition with Sentinel-2 Image Utilizing Support Vector Machine, K-Nearest Neighbor, Random Forest, Decision Trees and Multi-Layer Perceptron

  • Jan 29, 2023
  • Forests
  • Chen Zhang +2
  • Research Article
  • Citations14

Prediction and feature selection of low birth weight using machine learning algorithms

  • Oct 12, 2024
  • Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition
  • Tasneem Binte Reza +1
  • Research Article
  • Citations5

Comparative analysis of decision tree and random forest classifiers for structured data classification in machine learning

  • Nov 30, 2024
  • Science in Information Technology Letters
  • Agnes Nola Sekar Kinasih +3
Cactus Communications logo

Copyright 2026 Cactus Communications. All rights reserved.