Page 140 - Big Data Analytics for Intelligent Healthcare Management
P. 140

5.8 RESULTS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION            133






                Table 5.17 Trend Line Models
                Model formula                            Period   Techniques   (ln(Avg. Frequency)+intercept)
                Number of modeled observations           232
                Number of filtered observations          43
                Model degrees of freedom                 20
                Residual degrees of freedom (DF)         212
                SSE (sum squared error)                  2966.96
                MSE (mean squared error)                 13.9951
                R-Squared                                0.464517
                Standard error                           3.741
                P-Value (significance)                   <.0001




                Table 5.18 Analysis of Variance
                                                                           F
                Field            DF         SSE              MSE                          P-Value
                Period           16         1186.1289        74.1331       5.29707        <.0001
                Techniques       10         200.28787        20.0288       1.43113        .16814




               Trend Lines Model
                  A linear trend model is computed for average of duration given natural log of average of frequency.
                  The model may be significant at P  .05. The factor period may be significant at P  .05.
               GSRav: After applying the therapies, the data started moving toward the quartile of low duration and
               low frequency. This trend continued and at the end of the year, the majority of the data came under the
               zone of low frequency and low duration with the exceptions of four subjects.
                  EMGav: There was high rate of convergence of data toward the lower quartile of low duration and
               low frequency in the initial months and this continued until the end of the year. The data came under the
               average values for most of the subjects.
                  In conclusion, EMGav converged most of the diverged data more effectively than the GSRav.
                  Trend of TTH Duration per frequency with time:
                  All of the analysis that was undertaken was either from external resources or by solving the data
               from big data and this is where the proper analysis of patient data using the IoT comes into effect
               (Fig. 5.26).
                  The subjects underwent different therapies for the chronic type of TTH headache for 12months and
               their observations were recorded. The Duration per Frequency graph was plotted where the average
               TTH duration per cycle (frequency) was recorded and presented in minutes per cycle.
                  GSRav: The GSRav therapy showed a continuous improvement in the reduction of occurrence
               of chronic TTH duration per frequency. The overall improvement in reduction in duration of
               12months was recorded as 136.17–72.63min/week with an improvement of 63.54min/week. The ther-
               apy also recorded a total dropout of 5. The rate of reduction for TTH duration per frequency was
               continuous.
   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145