Prediction of Wart Treatment Using Deep Learning with Implicit Feature Engineering

  • Khang NguyenEmail author
  • Nga Mai
  • An Nguyen
  • Binh P. Nguyen
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 899)


Warts are skin growths that are caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV) through direct or indirect contact with an object used by a person with the virus. There are different types of warts and different treatment methods accordingly. Of which the cryotherapy method is preferably used to enhance the existing conventional treatment methods. As the enhanced method, the treatment decision process is very important to keep tracked and support for similar cases in future. In this study, a decision support system using machine learning is proposed to predict whether the selected wart treatment method could be successful or not using actual samples from a public dataset. There are some machine learning researches in this field using artificial neuron network (ANN) to solve the problem due to the structured dataset which is more suitable for other methods like k-nearest neighbors (kNN) or Random Forest (RF). This study uses a deep learning neuron network (DNN) approach with an implicit feature engineering method to deal with categorical features to learn implicit interactions among them. Furthermore, the k-fold cross validation is used to evaluate the proposed algorithm and the proposed model achieves the results up to 97.78% of Accuracy, 99.94% of the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve (AUC), 98.00% of Sensitivity and 98.00% of Specificity to predict the wart treatment method using the public cryotherapy dataset from the UCI Machine Learning Repository. This confirms that the proposed framework outperforms other methods using the same dataset.


  1. 1.
    Selahaddin Batuhan Akben: Predicting the success of wart treatment methods using decision tree based fuzzy informative images. Biocybern. Biomed. Eng. 38(4), 819–827 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheng, H.-T., et al.: Wide & deep learning for recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Deep Learning for Recommender Systems, DLRS 2016, pp. 7–10. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cüvitoğlu, A., Işik, Z.: Evaluation machine learning approaches for classification of cryotherapy and immunotherapy datasets. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Comput. 4(4), 331–335 (2018)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frank, E., Hall, M.: A simple approach to ordinal classification. In: De Raedt, L., Flach, P. (eds.) Machine Learning: ECML 2001, pp. 145–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., Courville, A.: Deep Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Juan, Y., Zhuang, Y., Chin, W.-S., Lin, C.-J.: Field-aware factorization machines for CTR prediction. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys 2016, pp. 43–50. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khozeimeh, F., Alizadehsani, R., Roshanzamir, M., Khosravi, A., Layegh, P., Nahavandi, S.: An expert system for selecting wart treatment method. Comput. Biol. Med. 81, 167–175 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khozeimeh, F., et al.: Intralesional immunotherapy compared to cryotherapy in the treatment of warts. Int. J. Dermatol. 56(4), 474–478 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Putra, M.A., Setiawan, N.A., Wibirama, S.: Wart treatment method selection using AdaBoost with random forests as a weak learner. Commun. Sci. Technol. 3(2), 52–56 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Qu, Y., et al.: Product-based neural networks for user response prediction over multi-field categorical data. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 37(1), 5:1–5:35 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rahman, M.M., Wang, S., Zhou, Y., Rogers, J.: Predicting the performance of cryotherapy for wart treatment using machine learning algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IISE Annual Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 1–6, May 2019Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rendle, S.: Factorization machines. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, Sydney, NSW, Australia, pp. 995–1000, December 2010Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shan, Y., Hoens, T.R., Jiao, J., Wang, H., Yu, D., Mao, J.C.: Deep crossing: web-scale modeling without manually crafted combinatorial features. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD 2016, pp. 255–262. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Uzun, R., Isler, Y., Toksan, M.: Use of support vector machines to predict the success of wart treatment methods. In: 2018 Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications Conference (ASYU), pp. 1–4, October 2018Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang, R., Fu, B., Fu, G., Wang, M.: Deep & cross network for Ad click predictions. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ADKDD 2017, pp. 12:1–12:7. ACM, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang, W., Du, T., Wang, J.: Deep learning over multi-field categorical data—a case study on user response prediction. In: Ferro, N., et al. (eds.) Advances in Information Retrieval - Proceedings of the 38th European Conference on IR Research, vol. 9626 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 45–57. Springer (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  • Khang Nguyen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nga Mai
    • 2
  • An Nguyen
    • 3
  • Binh P. Nguyen
    • 4
  1. 1.IBM VietnamHanoiVietnam
  2. 2.Thang Long UniversityHanoiVietnam
  3. 3.R&D DepartmentPetroVietnam Exploration Production CorporationHanoiVietnam
  4. 4.School of Mathematics and StatisticsVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations