Utilizing Fog computing and Explainable Deep Learning techniques for Gestational Diabetes prediction

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1098270/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Utilizing Fog computing and Explainable Deep Learning techniques for Gestational Diabetes prediction

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1098270/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is one of the pregnancy complications that poses a significant risk on mothers and babies as well. GDM usually diagnosed at 22- 26 of gestation. However, the early prediction is desirable as it may contribute to decrease the risk. The continuous monitoring for mother’s vital signs helps in predicting any deterioration during pregnancy. The originality of this paper is to provide comprehensive framework for pregnancy women monitoring. The proposed Data Replacement and Prediction Framework (DRPF) consists of three layers which are: (i) IoT Layer, (ii) Fog Layer, and (iii) Cloud Layer. The first layer used IOT sensors to aggregate vital sings from pregnancies using invasive and non- invasive sensors. Then the vital signs transmitted to fog nodes to processed and finally stored in the cloud layer. The main contribution in this paper is located in the fog layer producing GDM module to implement two influential tasks which are: (i) Data Finding Methodology (DFM), and (ii) Explainable Prediction Algorithm (EPM) using DNN. First, the DFM is used to replace the unused data to free the cache space for the new incoming data items. The cache replacement is very important in the case of healthcare system as the incoming vital signs are frequent and must be replaced continuously. Second, the EPM is used to predict the incidence of GDM that may occur in the second trimester of the pregnancy. To evaluate our model, we extract data of 16,354 pregnancy women from medical information mart for intensive care (MIMIC III) benchmark dataset. For each woman, vital signs, demographic data and lab tests was aggregated. The results of the prediction model superior the state of the art (ACC=0.957, AUC=0.942). Regarding to explainability, we utilized Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) framework to provide local and global explanation for the developed models. Overall, the proposed framework is medically intuitive, allow the early prediction of GDM with cost effective solution.

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM)

Deep Learning (DL)

Fog Computing

Healthcare System

Effective Data Caching

Machine Learning

GDM is an irregular glucose level status that occurred during pregnancy. It is a common pregnancy complication that recognized in 3-10% of the pregnancies [1] [2] [3]. GDM is usually diagnosed between 22 and 26 of gestational, may result in high-risk complications for both women and infants. These risks include respiratory problems, metabolic complications, premature delivery, and the fetus may gain increased weight that may hamper the birthing process. Despite the fact that GDM usually goes away after birth, women are still at a significant risk of developing type 2 diabetes, with a cumulative incidence of 30–50% within 5–10 years following the index pregnancy [3][4]. Several studies reported that the high-risk complications could be avoided if the medical intervention started at the first or the begging of the second trimesters [5].

Hence early detection of GDM is critical for avoiding a variety of problems and it is important in issues such as: (i) Evidence suggests that pre-diabetes treatment response varies when GDM history is taken into consideration [5][6]. (ii) Individualized risk prediction and treatment response estimation could also help guide pre-diabetes treatment selections [7][8]. (iii) Women with a history of GDM can learn about their diabetes risk in the future and how metformin and/or ILI might help [8][9]. Individual risk estimation could help doctors make better clinical decisions and make diabetes prevention programs more efficient, cost-effective, and patient-centered [7][8].

For the general population, there are a variety of models available to estimate the risk of acquiring diabetes [10][11] [12] [13]. However, few people employ multivariable models to help customize preventive treatments to specific people [7][8] [13][14]. Predictors in models designed specifically for women with prior GDM frequently incorporate measurements taken during or shortly after pregnancy (e.g., insulin use during pregnancy or breastfeeding history) [13] [15][16].

In the last decades, several studies have been utilized data from electronic health record (EHR) to diagnosis and predict patient future events such as mortality prediction [17] [18], sepsis prediction [19] [20][21], predict heart problems [22], GDM complications [23][24], etc. However, little number of studies work on predicting GDM [25] [26] [27]. For example: (i) a recent study develop formula to predict GDM, this formula includes pregnancy body mass index (BMI), gestational age fasting glucose. (ii) Xiong et al. [28] decided to use support vector Machine (SVM) and light gradient boosting Machine to create a risk prediction mechanism for the first 19 weeks using high-potential GDM predictors (light GBM). (iii) Using biochemical markers and the ML method, Zheng et al. [29] presented a straightforward method for detecting GDM in early pregnancy. (iv) In a study conducted by Shen et al. [30], it was stated that the exploration of the best AI approach for GDM prediction required the least number of clinical devices and trainees in order to construct an AI-based application (AI). [31][32].

Other studies [33][34] have attempted to develop models based on risk factors discovered in the first trimester that can predict an abnormal OGTT at 24–28 weeks. They considered several factors predict GDM include scoring methods, glucose biochemistry assays, and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels have all been used in different populations with varying degrees of success [35][36]. GDM can be averted, according to clinical study, if a comprehensive lifestyle modification is performed before the 20th week of pregnancy [37][38].

Unless the good performance of preciously developed models for GDM, all of them neglecting the explainability issue, concentering on optimizing the performance of the ML model. Therefore, most of them are not accepted in the medical domain. Explainability become important in ML applications, as it help to provide transparent model that could explain the output decision. Traditional models that deal with hundreds of variables find it difficult to understand the impact of each feature on the overall decision, and the features that make the developed model move towards one of the classes. Ongoing explainability of models is another important issue, as it used to detect the variable importance and the effect of changes in the developed model. Our goal is to develop a clinical diabetes risk prediction model that is specific to women with GDM who have already been diagnosed.

The prediction model depends on the vital signs come from set of sensors connected to the woman. And when we talk about sensors sending data, it leads to talking about IoT [39]. IoT generates big data, which requires sending these data to cloud-based Data Centers. To minimize the latency which is very critical issue in such cases like healthcare [40], Fog Computing (FC) is a mandatory decision. FC is not a replacement for Cloud Computing, but rather an extension of it that makes use of resources from devices near the edge [41]. Hence, The FC increases QoS parameters such as bandwidth efficiency and energy usage while also lowering latency [42].

The originality of this paper is to provide comprehensive framework for pregnancy women monitoring. The proposed Data Replacement and Prediction Framework (DRPF) consists of three layers which are: (i) IoT Layer, (ii) Fog Layer, and (iii) Cloud Layer. The first layer used IOT sensors to aggregate vital sings from pregnancies using invasive and non- invasive sensors. Then the vital signs transmitted to fog nodes to processed and finally stored in the cloud layer. The main contribution in this paper is located in the fog layer producing GDM module to implement two influential tasks which are: (i) Data Finding Methodology (DFM), and (ii) Explainable Prediction Algorithm (EPM) using DNN. First, the DFM is used to replace the unused data to free the cache space for the new incoming data items. The cache replacement is very important in the case of healthcare system as the incoming vital signs are frequent and must be replaced continuously. Second, the EPM is used to predict the incidence of GDM that may occur in the second trimester of the pregnancy.

The rest of paper is organized as follows: Section 2 gives a background for some basic concepts. Section 3 introduces the recent previous efforts in the field of deep learning algorithms used to analyze and predict deterioration during pregnancy. Section 4 introduces a proposed Data Replacement and Prediction Framework (DRPF) with more details about each contribution. Section 5 introduces the implementation and evaluation. Our conclusion is discussed in Section 6.

This section introduces some concepts in the field of Probabilistic Neural Networks (PNN), fog in healthcare applications, and data caching in fog

2.1. Probabilistic Neural Networks (PNN)

A probabilistic neural network (PNN) is a type of feed forward neural network that is commonly used to solve classification and pattern recognition tasks. A Parzen window and a non-parametric function are used to approximate the parent probability distribution function (PDF) of each class in the PNN method. PNN are organized into a four-layer multilayered feed forward network [43][44]: (i) Input layer: is made up of nodes that each have a collection of metrics. (ii) Pattern layer: Each example in the training data set has its own neuron. It calculates the test case's Euclidean distance from the neuron's center point, then uses the sigma values to apply the Radial Basis Function (RBF) kernel function. (iii) Summation layer: For each class, executes a sum operation on the outputs from such as the highest-scoring label node. PNN has a number of advantages, including: [43] : (1) PNN networks predict target probability scores with high accuracy, and (2) As the size of the representative training set grows, it is guaranteed to converge to an optimal classifier second layer. (iv) Output layer: takes all of the summation nodes' outputs and outputs the maximum.

2.2. Explainability and interpretability of deep learning models

Explainable AI (XAI) is a framework that used to open the black box of the machine learning, help in understanding the output of the machine learning models [45]. Explainability also defined as the degree in which the human could understand the ML decision [46], provide insights on how the ML model, discuss the logic goes to take this decision. Applying XAI provide three main advantages include (1) provide clear explanation increase the trust in the developed model. (2) Enable model troubleshooting, (3) specifying the source of model basis. Explainability and accuracy considered two separate issues that should maintained when building ML models. Generally, algorithms with high accuracy performance are not able to give a clear explanation to their decision and vise versa. Two main types of AI explainability include global method that apply to understand the overall behavior of the model and effect of each feature in the output decision, local method that used to clarify the decision of the model for each instance [47]. The interpretable model is very critical, especially in medical domains to translate the output decision to human understandable language.

2.3. Fog in Healthcare applications

Healthcare services and applications are delay sensitive. They deal with private data of the patients [48]. The patients' data contains very sensitive and personal data so the data location should be secured. High latency may cause many problems in tele-health and telemedicine applications, which makes FC a suitable paradigm in healthcare applications. As for many applications in health informatics, a simple sensor-to-cloud architecture is impractical. Regulations prohibit the storage of patient data outside of a hospital in specific instances. Because of patient safety concerns in the event of network and data center failures, reliance exclusively on remote data centers is also unsuitable for some applications [49]. Fog computing is one possible option for bridging the gap between sensors and analytics in health informatics.

2.4. Data caching in fog

For boosting data availability and lowering access latency, data caching is a critical issue in FC. Each Fog Node (FN) is so small, therefore cache replenishment is a critical concern. In the FC context, cache replacement achieves load balancing by ensuring data availability. Cooperative caching is the most frequent data caching strategy in FC. In this case, each FN's local cache is shared with its neighbors, resulting in a big unified cache. Each node in a cooperative caching system can get data not only from its own local cache but also from the caches of its neighbors.

As a result, the data availability is maximized, the access delay is minimized, and the response time for the end-user layer is reduced. FNs share data in a variety of fog applications, including healthcare [50], smart homes[51], industrial systems [52], and intelligent traffic signs [53]. As a result, sharing cache contents amongst FNs has a lot of advantages. By picking a suitable set of data for caching, the cache replacement method plays a key role in lowering response time. When the cache fills up, a data item must be removed to make room for the data that needs to be fetched. The performance will be improved if the least used data object is chosen.

This section will divide in to main section as follows (i) provide literature review of using fog computing in reducing latency, (ii) introduces some of the recent previous efforts in the field of deep learning algorithms used to analyze and predict deterioration during pregnancy.

3.1 Utilizing fog computing in healthcare systems

Real-time monitoring is required for healthcare applications. Real-time requirements cannot be met by the cloud [54][55]. For latency-sensitive applications, the cloud is ineffective. Fog computing has been presented as a solution to these issues. Ahmad et al.[56] suggested a health fog system in which fog computing serves as an intermediary layer between the cloud and the end-user. Communication expenses are reduced thanks to this three-layer architecture.

Shukla et al. [57] presented a smart fog computing architecture to reduce latency and network traffic. Requests can be processed locally before being sent to the cloud in this three-layer design. Fog computing serves as a middle layer that improves network services while reducing the downsides of IoT health. In the healthcare IoT, fog nodes are employed to reduce latency. Greco et al. [58] presented a layered architecture aimed at solving health monitoring issues. There are two types of health monitoring problems: static and dynamic monitoring.

An IoT-Fog-Cloud ecosystem was proposed by Alli et al. [59]. It's an intriguing architecture in which IoT devices respond to user requests. End devices are on the bottom, the fog layer is in the center, and the cloud layer is at the top. Localized computation, fog-edge computing, and remote computing are all supported by this architecture. Abdelmoneem et al.[60] present a system that dynamically distributes healthcare tasks across cloud and fog computing. This architecture will handle a wide range of health issues and a large number of individuals.

3.2 Utilizing deep learning in predicting GDM

Predicting pregnancies deterioration considered critical issue in medical domain. Recently, various studies utilizing ML and DL to predict GDM and its consequence. For example, j. Wang [61] utilizing various ML algorithms include random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and artificial neural network (ANN) to predict GDM. the model evaluated on a data collected from different hospitals in eastern China, result in accuracies ranged from 81–86%. Another study [32] utilized patient electronic health record (EHR) to predict GDM during early pregnancy based. the authors first employed six ML include (SVM, NN, logistic regression (LR), baysesin network and CHAID tree), then they developed cost effective hybrid model to improve accuracy. Result in accuracy of 86.5% and 84.7% for training and testing respectively. The same in [62], A.Sumathi provide voting ensemble classifier based on various ML techniques include ( LR, SVM, RF, k-nearest neighbour (KNN))result in accuracy of 94.24%.

In [53], Y. Liu el al first studtied the impact of different types of features and multiclass feature combination on predicting GDM. They devised a feature screening method for determining the importance of traits in order to automatically filter the appropriate number of features. Then, they vectorized features using depth representation methods like network embedding, analyzed the relationship between features using a similarity measurement method, and finally applied it to the classification model for prediction. This approach could learn some aspects automatically based on both domain knowledge rather than artificial rules, resulting in superior results. Unless the enhanced performance of the developed model, It necessitates extra time and money to manage data by humans.

When the features filtered by Wideband Bandpass Filters (WBFs) as in [54], the accuracy, F1 value, and AUC value of logistic regression are 0.809, 0.881, and 0.825, respectively, which was a 12 percent gain when compared to when the feature is not used. The findings showed that a data drive based on electronic medical records can significantly enhance the accuracy of forecasting gestational diabetes. Y.Zhong et al, [55] created a method to assess the risk of GDM in second-trimester pregnancy. This model based on a variety of risk factors, that has a high predictive value for the development of GDM in pregnant women in China and may be useful in directing future clinical practice. However, In terms of liver function, there was no significant difference between the two groups, which is an essential indicator of visceral fat metabolism (especially hepatic fat metabolism).

For women with past GDM, M.Schwartz et al,[63] built and internally verified a therapeutically useful prediction model that includes fasting glucose, HbA1c, BMI, treatment arm, and BMI by treatment arm interaction. Integrating personalized diabetes risk prediction into pre-diabetes therapy decision-making should help researchers better grasp the benefits of ILI and/or metformin in diabetes prevention. For personalized decision-making in the management of prediabetes in women with past GDM, a clinical prediction model was devised. For women with a prior GDM, the estimated incidence of diabetes without therapy was 37.4%, compared to 20.0 percent with comprehensive lifestyle modification or metformin treatment. It is officially predicated on the presumption of a lady who has had a previous GDM. In most circumstances, it isn't very accurate. In [64], F.Guo et al created a simple nomogram for pregnant Chinese women that may be used to predict the likelihood of getting GDM during the first antenatal visit. This method could detect GDM early allowing more effective management to improve maternal outcomes. On the other hand, the AUC statistic is just concerned with prediction accuracy. A model with a higher AUC but a little lower sensitivity might be a better choice for clinical application. As a result, we employed decision-analytic approaches to assess the worthiness of a model or alternatives, using our findings and theory.

One of the most significant applications related to the aims of IoT is an efficient healthcare system. In this regard, many factors should be taken into consideration such as time, privacy of data, and accuracy. The healthcare system should be reliable and available at any time. Accordingly, this paper is concerned with designing an IoT-Fog based healthcare system as shown in Figure 1. The proposed Data Replacement and Prediction Framework (DRPF) consists of three layers which are: (i) IoT Layer, (ii) Fog Layer, and (iii) Cloud Layer. The IoT layer combines the IoT devices (pulse oximeter, ECG monitor, etc.) to observe the user status. The fog layer is considered with handling the incoming requests and forwards them to the suitable Fog Node (FN). The fog layer is divided into set of fog regions, and layer 3 is the cloud datacenters. The following subsections details the roles of the proposed layers.

4.1. IoT Layer

IoT devices utilized as it provides wide range of flexibility, for example, if a patient requires constant care, he or she can remain at home rather than in a hospital and be monitored on a frequent basis utilizing IoT technology. The data transferred from the sensor to the control device and then to the monitoring center will be affected by noise, lowering the data quality. On the IoT, monitoring a large number of users necessitates more storage and infrastructure, which may be avoided by keeping data in the cloud.

4.2. Cloud Layer

Cloud datacenters locate at remote distance from IoT devices which leads to high latency. This issue adversely affects the response time for real time applications such as critical health monitoring systems, traffic monitoring, and emergency fire. In addition, IoT sources are geographically extended and can generate a large amount of data sent to cloud for processing which lead to overloading. The edge computational resources can handle the previous mentioned challenges in IoT systems.

The patient data which comes from the IoT sensors is sent to the used application which uses the proposed GDM module. The used application sends its data to be processed in the fog layer. The main module called GDM Module is implemented in the fog layer as shown in Figure 2 is running in the fog layer. GDM module is used to predict GDM with low latency.

4.3. Fog Layer

Fog can be considered as a computing paradigm which performs IoT applications at the edge of the network. The Fog improves the QoS metrics such as (bandwidth efficiency and energy consumption) and reduces latency. The main mission of fog is to deliver data and place it closer to the user.

4.3.1. The proposed GDM module

The proposed GDM module is composed of two main sub-modules: (i) Data Finding Methodology (DFM), and (ii) Explainable Prediction Algorithm (EPM) using DNN.

Data Finding Methodology (DFM)

The DFM is used to replace the unused data to free the cache space for the new incoming data items. The cache replacement is very important in the case of healthcare system as the incoming vital signs are frequent and must be replaced continuously. Caching in a fog environment is constrained by bandwidth limitations, power limitations, and cache space limitations. To discriminate between data items that should be preserved in the cache and those that should be discarded when the cache is full, a decent replacement mechanism is necessary.

The network is divided into fog regions and each region has a Master Node (MN) that manages the communication in each fog region. The MN collects the required features about each fog node such as: (i) Existing Data (ED), (ii) Time-To-Live (TTL), and (ii) Cache Size (CS). The MN periodically checks each data features to delete the data items with zero TTL. If the cache of the Fog sever is full and there is an incoming data, the MN can decide to remove a data item according to some criteria. Each FN has a table called Data Cache Table (DCT) which contains information about each di in its cache memory such as: (data item (di), Access Time (TA), Size of data (S), Access Frequency (FA), Access Count (AC), Time-To-Live (TTL), and Cache Free Size (CFS) as shown in Table 1.

Table.1. Data Cache Table (DCT)

Data item (di)	Access Time (TA)	Size of data (S)	Access Frequency (FA)	Access Count (AC)	Time-To-Live (TTL)	Cache Free Size (CFS)
Refers to data item's number.	The time at which data item enters the cache of the FN.	Size of data item.	The value of how many times di was accessed. It indicates the importance of the di.	Each data item maintains a count which gives the number of FNs having the same data.	TTL is a time period given to each di when it is located at this cache.	The free space in the cache.

Using PNN, algorithm can decide to remove a data item and replace it with new incoming data according to its features. The input to the PNN is: TA, AC, and FA. The output of PNN is Data Replace (DR). DR can be Yes or No. The steps of PNN based cache replacement strategy are shown in Algorithm 1.

Explainable Prediction Algorithm (EPM) using DNN

This section proposed EPA model that aimed to detect the incidence of GDM among pregnancies. In addition to provide understandable explanation to the predicted output. We evaluated our model based on MIMIC III dataset. As shown in Figure 3, The proposed EPM consists of four main steps: (a) Data Collection: collecting the required dataset using PostgreSQL, extracting data from various tables include (patients, chartevents, D_itmes, lab-events, and input_events), (b) Data Preprocessing: The output from the first step cleaned and preprocessed using different steps include (removing outliers, standardization and balancing), (c) Feature Extraction: utilizing DNN to build classification model that could detect the incidence of GDM. (d) Developing DL model: The output decision then utilized SHAP explainer to provide understandable explanation to the developed decision. The performance of our model evaluated using unseen data to ensure the efficiency the proposed model is promising, accurate and explainable.

a) Data Collection

Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC III) is a benchmark dataset that developed by MIT Lab. It includes HER data for patients inside ICU. MIMIC III accessible by getting confirmation from Physionet Organization. MIMIC III includes the data for 53.422 distinct patients. 4750 measurement and 390 laboratory tests included in MIMIC III dataset. As shown in Figure 3, in this study we extract the data from MIMIC III dataset include patient’s demographics (i.e., age, gender, BMI), vital signs (i.e., heart rate, respiratory rate, glucose level, etc.) and laboratory test (i.e., Albumin, Creatine, Cholesterol, sodium, etc.) The present study was conducted on 8740 pregnant women according to inclusion criteria includes: (i) female gender that was adult (age>20). (ii) Recorded as pregnant in mimic iii database (item_id (pregnant= 225082, pregnant due date= 225083). Gestenail age between 6 to 26 weeks. Existing of required vital signs and laboratory tests. Features used in EPM is detailed in Table2.

Table.2. Features used in EPM

Feature_ID	Feature_Name	UOM	Average for GDM	Average for non-GDM	P_Value
	BMI	-	28 ± 6.2	21.66 ± 3.2	<0.05
3692	Weight Change	kg	12±12.8	10±7.9	<0.05
3583	Previous Weight	Kg	75 ±15.3	66 ±7.2	<0.05
3446	gestenail age		24.4 ±1.2	18 ± 2.3	<0.05
1127	WBC (4-11,000)	(*103 /µm)	9.48 ±2.6	8.87 ±1.3	<0.05
626	Neutrophil	%	69.21 ±8.9	71± 8.7	<0.05
220635	PCT	%	0.20 ±0.05	0.17±0.61	<0.01
220645	Sodium	mEq/L	142±3.2	135±4.2	<0.05
223830	PH (Arterial)	-	7.45±0.2	7.35±2.2	<0.01
223751	Non-Invasive Blood Pressure	mmHg	125±5.8/90±5.6	115±3.8/75±3.4	<0.05
2381, 220045	Heart rate	Bit per M	70±23	60±22	<0.05
646, 5820	Spo2	%	95 ±4.2	95 ±5
1126	Platelet	(×103/µm)	231.0±62.6	198.0±62.6	<0.05
783	lymphocyte	%	25.9±7.4	24.8±6.9	<0.05
772,227456	Albumin (>3.2)	(g/L)	44±9.8	3412.2	<0.05
1529	Glucose	mg/dL	100±25.3	90±22.7	<0.05
1525	Creatinine	mg/dL	0.7±0.5	. 0.6 ±0.2	<0.02
1523	Chloride	(mEq/L)	100±3.2	96 ±4.4	<0.05
3684	Vitamin E	mg/l	9.20±2.37	10.80±5.01	<0.05
1522	Calcium	mg/dL	9.3 ±1.8	8.6 ±2.2	<0.05

b) Data preprocessing

The output from the first step cleaned and preprocessed using different steps include removing outliers, standardization and balancing [65]. The steps of data preprocessing are as follow: (i) Data balancing: Class imbalance is a common problem, especially with medical dataset. In MIMIC III a minor number of pregnant women have GDM which may lead to the problem of imbalanced dataset. Two main techniques commonly used to handle this issue include oversampling [66] and under-sampling[67]. Oversampling techniques used to increase number of samples in the minority class such as synthetic minority oversampling technique, where under sampling used to remove samples from the majority class such as Tomek link and random under sampling. In this study we used the random under sampling technique to keep the data balanced. The main advantage of using under sampling technique is that it doesn’t add any noise to the dataset.

(ii) Handle missing values: MIMIC dataset includes about 15-20% of missing data. Several statistical techniques used to impute the missing values such as expectation maximization [68], hot decking encoding [69], etc. in this study we removed data with more 50% missing data. We only selected patients that have at least one record for each vital signs per day. Then, forward and backward filling used to fill patient’s data. (iii) Scaling data: The extracted features have different values which may vary in their value. These variations usually affect classifier performance. Therefore, in this study we scaled all features to be ranged from 0 to -1 using Minmax scaling [70]

c) Feature Extraction

In this section we extracted two feature subset A, and B as shown in Table 3. Feature set A: include the main vital signs include (heart rate, glucose level. SPo2, blood pressure, etc.), and some lab tests include (PCT, total burlibun, etc.). feature set B: include all features in feature A, in addition to some features related to pregnancy such as Gestenail age, weight change and other lab features such as Lymphocyte, Sodium, Vitamin E, Neutrophil, etc. these features have a critical effect of GDM detection. For example, Vitamin E is a critical measure to maintain the metabolic of the body and scavenging radical activities. The deficiency of Vitamin E among pregnancies may lead to vascular endothelial, incidence of GDM and hypertension, in addition to placental and premature birth [51]. Therefore. Considering vitamin E is important in GDM prediction. The same for Lymphocyte, the count decreases during the first and the second trimesters and increased during the third one. Increasing lymphocyte may also contribute to irregular glucose level.

Table.3. Features used in model A and model B

Model	Features
Model A	Age, BMI, Respiratory rate, Heart Rate, Glucose level, SPO2, blood pressure, Calcium, Sodium, PH (Arterial), Total Bilirubin, PCT
Model B	Age, BMI, Weight change, Gestenail age, Respiratory rate, Heart Rate, Glucose level, blood pressure, BUN, PH (Arterial), SPO2, PTT, Vitamin E, Neutrophil, Lymphocyte, Glucose, Creatinine, Creatinine, Calcium, Sodium, PCT

d) Developing DL model

Dl model includes 20 input dimensions using dense and dropout layers. Dense layers considered a neural network that connected deeply. Each neuron in each layer receives the output from the previous layers. Dense layers also utilized to change the vector dimension. Dropout layer is regularization approach that used to randomly ignoring some neurons during training process to avoid overfitting [71]. As shown in figure 4, in the hidden layers, we used activation function rectified linear activation function or “ReLU”, it is a liner activation function that out the input directly if it is positive, otherwise, it will output zero. In the last layer, we utilized the sigmoid activation function for binary classification[72]. This result in a robust network that have a good generalization ability and less likely to overfit.

In model A, we used the basic feature set such as patient’s age, heart rate, blood pressure and other vital signs to predict GDM. EPM achieves adequate performance (Accuracy= 0.902%, AUC=0.912%). Model B used the same features in model A, in addition to other features include gestenail age, weight change and other lab tests such as Albumin, vitamin E which have impact on GDM incidence. The results demonstrate that the performance increased when adding weight-change and gestenail change (Accuracy =0.957%, AUC=0.942%). From the previous experiments, we observed the following: (i) patients with GDM ranged from 25 to 45 years (average 32.12 ±5.6). (ii) GDM usually appeared in gestenail age between (19- 26 weeks). (iii) Both BMI and weight change during pregnancy is highly associated with GDM (GDM average for BMI was 28 ± 6.2 and for non GDM was 21.66 ± 3.2). (iv) GDM pregnant women associated with significance difference (P<0.05) in liver and kidney functions that reflected in high values for Albumin, BUN, SBP, TC, etc. The overall results are illustrated in Table 4 and Figure 5.

Table.4. Features used in model A and model B

DL Model	Accuracy	Precision	Recall	F-score	AUC
Model A	0.926%	0. 9321%	0. 8431%	0.902%	0.912%
Model B	0.957%	0.949%	0.892%	0.937%	0.942%

5.1. Evaluation of Explainability of DL model

5.1.1. Global explainability

In this section, we used SHAP summary plots to show the behavior of the developed model in terms of different values of several features. As shown in figure 6, each horizontal line represents one feature and the number of dots represent the correlation between the feature and the overall decision. Color of the dots represent the nature of correlation (Red for high, and blue for low). From figure 6 we make the following observations. (i) Albumin and weight change have a significant correlation with GDM prediction, higher values have a positive impact of predicting GDM. (ii) High values of PTT have negative effect of predicting GDM. (iii) Summary plot allows specifying the effect of the outliers. For example, weight change is not the most critical feature, it impacted for some cases. This appeared in the long tail that distrusted in both directions.

5.1.2. Local explainability

In this section, we utilized SHAP plots to show explanation for the output decision for each case (local explainability. Figure 7 show a GDM case with probability of 73% to have GDM. It also shown the most impact feature values that move the result towards positive class such as gestenail age= 19, albumin= 56.75, Neutrophil= 96.47 and other factors that move the decision to not have GDM include weight change=2.31

The all-previous mentioned abbreviations are listed as shown in Table 5.

Table.5. List of abbreviations

Term	Description
GDM	Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
DL	Deep Learning
AUC	Area Under the roc Curve
PHR	Patient Health Record
HER	Electronic Health Record
PA	Predictive Analytics
PNN	Probabilistic Neural Networks
FC	Fog Computing
CC	Cloud Computing
IOT	Internet of Things

In this study, we provide comprehensive framework for pregnancy women monitoring. The proposed Data Replacement and Prediction Framework (DRPF) consists of three layers which are: (i) IoT Layer, (ii) Fog Layer, and (iii) Cloud Layer. The first layer used IOT sensors to aggregate vital sings from pregnancies using invasive and non- invasive sensors. Then the vital signs transmitted to fog nodes to processed and finally stored in the cloud layer. The main contribution in this paper is located in the fog layer producing GDM module to implement two influential tasks which are: (i) Data Finding Methodology (DFM), and (ii) Explainable Prediction Algorithm (EPM) using DNN. First, the DFM is used to replace the unused data to free the cache space for the new incoming data items. The cache replacement is very important in the case of healthcare system as the incoming vital signs are frequent and must be replaced continuously. Second, the EPM is used to predict the incidence of GDM that may occur in the second trimester of the pregnancy. The first DL model (model A) based on vital signs, laboratory tests and patient’s demographics. The second DL model (model B) used the same features, in addition to other pregnant features include weight change, gestenail age, Lymphocyte, Sodium, Vitamin E, Neutrophil, etc. Our study reported that patient’s age, BMI, blood pressure, Lymphocyte vitamin E are mainly associated with GDM diagnosing. The proposed model achieves accurate and promising result for academic perspective. However, we are still need to close from real-world secaris. Therefore, in the future, we intend to apply our model on a large scale of pregnant patients to ensure the generalization ability of our study.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not sought for the present study

Funding details

The study didn’t get any fund

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that no conflict of interest

Informed Consent

There are no human subjects in this article and informed consent is not applicable

Authorship contributions

Author Contributions: All authors participated in the design and implementation processes of this manuscript. They participated in drafting the article and critically revising it. Authors N.E.-R. and F.M.-T. provided the conceptualization of the model by designing the proposed framework. Author N.E.-R. designed implemented the deep learning model. N.-S. proposed the methodology. Authors A.N. and N.E.R analyzed the models and results. Authors A.N., and N.E.R reviewed the proposed model and its implementation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

P. Risk, A. Monitoring, S. Prams, C. L. Desisto, S. Y. Kim, and A. J. Sharma, “Prevalence Estimates of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in the United States , Prevalence Estimates of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in the United States , Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System ( PRAMS ), 2007 – 2010,” no. September, pp. 2007–2010, 2014, doi: 10.5888/pcd11.130415.
Y. Xia and B. S. Gerber, “Diabetes Screening in US Women With a History of Gestational Diabetes , National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey ,” pp. 1–11, 2016.
Y. Zhu and C. Zhang, “Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes and Risk of Progression to Type 2 Diabetes : a Global Perspective,” 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11892-015-0699-x.
A. M. Egan, E. A. L. Enninga, L. Alrahmani, A. L. Weaver, M. P. Sarras, and R. Ruano, “Recurrent Gestational Diabetes Mellitus : A Narrative Review and Single-Center Experience,” 2021.
C. Christophi, D. Dabelea, and X. Pi-sunyer, “Prevention of Diabetes in Women with a History of Gestational Diabetes: Effects of Metformin and Lifestyle Interventions,” no. October, 2008, doi: 10.1210/jc.2008-0772.
V. R. Aroda et al., “The Effect of Lifestyle Intervention and Metformin on Preventing or Delaying Diabetes Among Women With and Without Gestational Diabetes : The Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study 10-Year Follow-Up,” vol. 100, no. April, pp. 1646–1653, 2015, doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-3761.
D. Kent, “Improving diabetes prevention with benefit based tailored treatment : risk based reanalysis of Diabetes,” no. February, 2015, doi: 10.1136/bmj.h454.
W. H. Herman et al., “Impact of Lifestyle and Metformin Interventions on the Risk of Progression to Diabetes and Regression to Normal Glucose Regulation in Overweight or Obese People With Impaired Glucose Regulation,” vol. 40, no. December, pp. 1668–1677, 2017, doi: 10.2337/dc17-1116.
L. Intervention and O. R. Metformin, “NIH Public Access,” vol. 346, no. 6, pp. 393–403, 2006.
R. Mathur, Q. Mary, C. Meads, and T. Greenhalgh, “Risk models and scores for type 2 diabetes : systematic,” no. November, 2011, doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7163.
H. Bang, A. M. Edwards, A. S. Bomback, C. M. Ballantyne, and D. Brillon, “Annals of Internal Medicine Article Development and Validation of a Patient Self-assessment Score for Diabetes Risk,” no. February 2014, 2009, doi: 10.1059/0003-4819-151-11-200912010-00005.
A. B. M Köhler, A G Ziegler and Institute, “Development of a simple tool to predict the risk of postpartum diabetes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus,” no. 0, pp. 1–15.
“Determinants for the Effectiveness of,” vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 857–862, 2008, doi: 10.2337/dc07-2162.
B. Costa, F. Barrio, J. Cabré, J. Piñol, and X. Cos, “Delaying progression to type 2 diabetes among high-risk Spanish individuals is feasible in real-life primary healthcare settings using intensive lifestyle intervention International Federation of Clinical Chemistry,” pp. 1319–1328, 2012, doi: 10.1007/s00125-012-2492-6.
M. Ekelund, N. Shaat, and K. Berntorp, “Prediction of postpartum diabetes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus,” no. December, 2009, doi: 10.1007/s00125-009-1621-3.
C. Ignell, M. Ekelund, E. Anderberg, and K. Berntorp, “Model for individual prediction of diabetes up to 5 years after gestational diabetes mellitus,” Springerplus, 2016, doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-1953-7.
A. Awad, M. Bader-El-Den, J. McNicholas, and J. Briggs, “Early hospital mortality prediction of intensive care unit patients using an ensemble learning approach,” Int. J. Med. Inform., vol. 108, no. October, pp. 185–195, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.10.002.
N. El-rashidy, S. El-sappagh, and H. M. E. Abuhmed, Tamer, Smair Abdelrazek, “Intensive Care Unit Mortality Prediction : An Improved Patient-Specific Stacking Ensemble Model,” vol. 8, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3010556.
R. P. Adams et al., “A Physiological Time Series Dynamics-Based Approach to Patient Monitoring and Outcome Prediction,” IEEE J. Biomed. Heal. Informatics, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1068–1076, 2015, doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2014.2330827.A.
J. Calvert et al., “High-performance detection and early prediction of septic shock for alcohol-use disorder patients,” Ann. Med. Surg., vol. 8, pp. 50–55, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2016.04.023.
N. El-Rashidy et al., Sepsis prediction in intensive care unit based on genetic feature optimization and stacked deep ensemble learning, vol. 1. Springer London, 2021.
A. R. M. Forkan and I. Khalil, “A probabilistic model for early prediction of abnormal clinical events using vital sign correlations in home-based monitoring,” 2016, doi: 10.1109/PERCOM.2016.7456519.
Y. Zhang et al., “A mid‑pregnancy risk prediction model for gestational diabetes mellitus based on the maternal status in combination with ultrasound and serological findings,” Exp. Ther. Med., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 293–300, 2020, doi: 10.3892/etm.2020.8690.
M. Ahmadi and E. Mirbagheri, “Designing Data Elements and Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Creating the Registry of Patients with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus,” J. Med. Life, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 160–167, 2019, doi: 10.25122/jml-2019-0011.
S. Burlina, M. G. Dalfrà, N. C. Chilelli, and A. Lapolla, “Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Future Cardiovascular Risk : An Update,” vol. 2016, 2016.
A. Mohammadbeigi, F. Farhadifar, N. Soufi, N. Mohammadsalehi, M. Rezaiee, and M. Aghaei, “Fetal Macrosomia : Risk Factors , Maternal , and Perinatal Outcome,” no. October, 2013, doi: 10.4103/2141-9248.122098.
M. Savvidou, S. M. Nelson, M. Makgoba, and C. Messow, “First-Trimester Prediction of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus : Examining the Potential of Combining Maternal Characteristics and Laboratory Measures,” vol. 59, no. December, pp. 3017–3022, 2010, doi: 10.2337/db10-0688.N.S.
T. Zheng et al., “A simple model to predict risk of gestational diabetes mellitus from 8 to 20 weeks of gestation in Chinese women,” vol. 8, pp. 1–11, 2019.
T. Zheng et al., “A simple model to predict risk of gestational diabetes mellitus from 8 to 20 weeks of gestation in Chinese women,” vol. 8, pp. 1–10, 2019.
J. Shen, J. Chen, Z. Zheng, J. Zheng, and Z. Liu, “An Innovative Artificial Intelligence – Based App for the Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus ( GDM-AI ): Development Study Corresponding Author :,” vol. 22, pp. 1–11, 2020, doi: 10.2196/21573.
S. Of and M. Carediabetes, “STANDARDS OF MEDICAL CARE IN DIABETES — 2018,” vol. 41, no. January, 2018.
H. Qiu et al., “Electronic Health Record Driven Prediction for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Early Pregnancy,” Sci. Rep., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 16417, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-16665-y.
Y. Wu et al., “Early Prediction of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in the Chinese Population via Advanced Machine Learning,” vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 1191–1205, 2021, doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa899.
A. M. Nuzzo et al., “Placental and maternal sFlt1 / PlGF expression in gestational diabetes mellitus,” Sci. Rep., pp. 1–10, 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-81785-5.
L. J. E. Meertens et al., “External validation and clinical utility of prognostic prediction models for gestational diabetes mellitus : A prospective cohort study,” no. December 2019, pp. 891–900, 2020, doi: 10.1111/aogs.13811.
V. G. P, J. Olmedo, V. G. P, and J. Olmedo, “Diabetes gestacional : conceptos actuales Gestational diabetes : Current concepts,” vol. 85, no. 6, pp. 380–390, 2017.
H. Shen, X. Liu, Y. Chen, B. He, and W. Cheng, “Associations of lipid levels during gestation with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and gestational diabetes mellitus : a prospective longitudinal cohort study,” 2016, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013509.
G. Ramos, C. Borges, N. Figueiroa, L. V. Alves, and J. G. Alves, “Physical activity pattern in early pregnancy and gestational diabetes mellitus risk among low-income women : A prospective cross-sectional study,” 2019, doi: 10.1177/2050312119875922.
F. M. Talaat, S. H. Ali, A. I. Saleh, and H. A. Ali, Effective Load Balancing Strategy ( ELBS ) for Real ‑ Time Fog Computing Environment Using Fuzzy and Probabilistic Neural Networks, vol. 27, no. 4. Springer US, 2019.
H. F. Atlam, “Fog Computing and the Internet of Things : A Review,” pp. 1–18, 2018, doi: 10.3390/bdcc2020010.
F. Bonomi, R. Milito, J. Zhu, and S. Addepalli, “Fog Computing and Its Role in the Internet of Things Characterization of Fog Computing,” pp. 13–15, 2012.
F. M. Talaat, M. S. Saraya, A. I. Saleh, H. A. Ali, and S. H. Ali, “A load balancing and optimization strategy ( LBOS ) using reinforcement learning in fog computing environment,” J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput., vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 4951–4966, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s12652-020-01768-8.
B. Karthikeyan, “Partial discharge pattern classification using composite versions of probabilistic neural network inference engine,” vol. 34, pp. 1938–1947, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2007.02.005.
S. Venkatesh and S. Gopal, “Expert Systems with Applications Robust Heteroscedastic Probabilistic Neural Network for multiple source partial discharge pattern recognition – Significance of outliers on classification capability,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 11501–11514, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.03.026.
A. Vellido, “The importance of interpretability and visualization in machine learning for applications in medicine and health care,” Neural Comput. Appl., no. February, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s00521-019-04051-w.
Q. Zheng, H. Delingette, and N. Ayache, “Explainable cardiac pathology classification on cine MRI with motion characterization by semi-supervised learning of apparent flow,” Med. Image Anal., vol. 56, pp. 80–95, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.media.2019.06.001.
S. El-Sappagh, J. M. Alonso, S. M. R. Islam, A. M. Sultan, and K. S. Kwak, “A multilayer multimodal detection and prediction model based on explainable artificial intelligence for Alzheimer’s disease,” Sci. Rep., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82098-3.
M. Aazam, P. P. Hung, and E. Huh, “Smart Gateway Based Communication for Cloud of Things,” no. October 2015, 2014, doi: 10.1109/ISSNIP.2014.6827673.
P. Habibi, M. Farhoudi, S. Kazemian, S. Khorsandi, and A. Leon-garcia, “Fog Computing : A Comprehensive Architectural Survey,” IEEE Access, vol. PP, p. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2983253.
S. H. Ali, A. I. Saleh, and H. A. Ali, “Effective cache replacement strategy ( ECRS ) for real-time fog computing environment,” Cluster Comput., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3309–3333, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10586-020-03089-z.
G. Elhayatmy, N. Dey, and A. S. Ashour, “Internet of Things and Big Data Analytics Toward Next-Generation Intelligence,” vol. 30, pp. 3–20, 2018, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-60435-0.
P. Pop, B. Zarrin, M. Barzegaran, and S. Schulte, “The FORA Fog Computing Platform for Industrial IoT ⋆,” 2020.
S. Rahul and R. Aron, “Fog Computing Architecture , Application and Resource Allocation : A Review,” vol. 4638, pp. 0–2, 2021.
P. Verma and S. K. Sood, “Fog Assisted- IoT Enabled Patient Health Monitoring in Smart Homes,” no. February, 2018, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2018.2803201.
H. Khaloufi, E. Jadida, and K. Abouelmehdi, “Fog Computing for Smart Healthcare data Analytics : An Urgent Necessity Fog Computing for Smart Healthcare data Analytics : An Urgent Necessity,” no. March, 2020, doi: 10.1145/3386723.3387861.
M. Ahmad, M. Bilal, S. Hussain, B. Ho, T. Cheong, and S. Lee, “Health Fog : a novel framework for health and wellness applications,” J. Supercomput., vol. 72, no. 10, pp. 3677–3695, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11227-016-1634-x.
B. Science, “Development of Edge-IoMT Computing Architecture for Smart Healthcare Monitoring Platform,” 2020, doi: 10.1109/ISMSIT50672.2020.9254501.
S. Yi, C. Li, and Q. Li, “A Survey of Fog Computing,” Proc. 2015 Work. Mob. Big Data - Mobidata ’15, pp. 37–42, doi: 10.1145/2757384.2757397.
R. M. Abdelmoneem, A. Benslimane, and E. Shaaban, “Mobility-Aware Task Scheduling in Cloud-Fog IoT-Based Healthcare Architectures,” 2020.
M. M. Nasralla, “Sustainable Virtual Reality Patient Rehabilitation Systems with IoT Sensors Using Virtual Smart Cities,” 2021.
J. Wang et al., “Machine Learning Approaches for Early Prediction of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Based on Prospective Cohort Study,” pp. 1–14, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-508626/v1.
A. Sumathi and S. Meganathan, “Ensemble classifier technique to predict gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM),” Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 313–325, 2022, doi: 10.32604/CSSE.2022.017484.
B. M. Id, A. S. Id, O. Pugach, Y. X. Id, and B. Gerber, “A clinical diabetes risk prediction model for prediabetic women with prior gestational diabetes,” pp. 1–14, 2021, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252501.
F. Guo, S. Yang, Y. Zhang, X. Yang, C. Zhang, and J. Fan, “Nomogram for prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus in urban , Chinese , pregnant women,” pp. 1–9, 2020.
D.-C. Li, C.-W. Liu, and S. C. Hu, “A learning method for the class imbalance problem with medical data sets,” Comput. Biol. Med., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 509–518, 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2010.03.005.
W. Mao, Y. Liu, L. Ding, and Y. Li, “Imbalanced fault diagnosis of rolling bearing based on generative adversarial network: A comparative study,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, no. c, pp. 9515–9530, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2890693.
P. Kaur and A. Gosain, “Comparing the Behavior of Oversampling and Undersampling Approach of Class Imbalance Learning by Combining Class Imbalance Problem with Noise Comparing the Behavior of Oversampling and Undersampling Approach of Class Imbalance Learning by Combining Class ,” no. January, 2018, doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-6602-3.
T. K. Moon, “The expectation-maximization algorithm,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 47–60, 1996, doi: 10.1109/79.543975.
D. W. Joenssen and U. Bankhofer, “Hot Deck Methods for Imputing Missing Data Hot Deck Methods for Imputing Missing Data The Effects of Limiting Donor Usage,” no. July 2012, 2015, doi: 10.1007/0097836.4231.53746.
E. Rachkidi et al., “Towards efficient automatic scaling and adaptive cost-optimized ehealth services in cloud,” 2015 IEEE Glob. Commun. Conf. GLOBECOM 2015, 2015, doi: 10.1109/GLOCOM.2014.7417751.
M. Smieja, Ł. Struski, J. Tabor, B. Zielinski, and P. Spurek, “Processing of missing data by neural networks,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2018, vol. 2018-Decem, no. Section 4, pp. 2719–2729.
I. U. Khan et al., “Computational Intelligence-Based Model for Mortality Rate Prediction in COVID-19 Patients,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 18, no. 12, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ijerph18126429.

Download PDF

Reviews received at journal
16 Feb, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
04 Feb, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
29 Nov, 2021
First submitted to journal
20 Nov, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

Utilizing Fog computing and Explainable Deep Learning techniques for Gestational Diabetes prediction

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Background And Basic Concepts

2.1. Probabilistic Neural Networks (PNN)

2.2. Explainability and interpretability of deep learning models

2.3. Fog in Healthcare applications

2.4. Data caching in fog

3. Related Work

3.1 Utilizing fog computing in healthcare systems

3.2 Utilizing deep learning in predicting GDM

4. The Proposed Data Replacement And Prediction Framework (Drpf)

4.1. IoT Layer

4.2. Cloud Layer

4.3. Fog Layer

4.3.1. The proposed GDM module

5. Results

5.1. Evaluation of Explainability of DL model

5.1.1. Global explainability

5.1.2. Local explainability

6. Conclusion

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1