2011
DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.396-398.1001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chemical Threats Diagnosis Expert System (CTDES)

Abstract: Chemical threats in open war fields or terrorist attacks are a serious possibility. Chemical leakage, mass destruction weapons and terrorism attacks are some sources of exposure to chemical agents. If a treatment procedure is implemented soon enough to patients exposed to chemical agents, the number of victims will certainly be reduced. Therefore, the need of an available expert who can diagnose the chemical agent and provides the proper treatment is of a paramount necessity. However, there is a lack for such … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 9 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Another study had extracted rules from the decision tree by designing an expert system that was used to diagnose neurological diseases ( 10 ). Other studies had extracted rules by a two step decision tree of training and testing ( 11 - 16 ) or had used the decision tree to extract the rules that were used to design neural networks and estimate the risk of preeclampsia with an accuracy of 83.6% in the training phase and 93.8% in the testing phase ( 17 ). The methods used in these studies are in line with the methodology used in the current study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another study had extracted rules from the decision tree by designing an expert system that was used to diagnose neurological diseases ( 10 ). Other studies had extracted rules by a two step decision tree of training and testing ( 11 - 16 ) or had used the decision tree to extract the rules that were used to design neural networks and estimate the risk of preeclampsia with an accuracy of 83.6% in the training phase and 93.8% in the testing phase ( 17 ). The methods used in these studies are in line with the methodology used in the current study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%