Alcohol dependence syndrome is hard to diagnose because none of the existing laboratory markers alone has sufficient specificity and sensitivity. This study investigated whether combinations of markers would improve the identification of patients with alcohol dependence syndrome. Intelligent data analysis was carried out using the decision tree induction method with training and test data from 244 healthy volunteers and 238 patients with alcohol dependence syndrome. The results showed that a combination of two or three laboratory markers can identify alcohol dependence syndrome with almost 85% accuracy. It must be noted that induced decision trees offer a qualitatively different diagnostic evaluation of laboratory findings that varies from common practice, because they set up their own new borders and criteria that are different to generally accepted or set reference values. Tests for all of the selected laboratory markers are widely available, inexpensive to perform and usually form part of a routine laboratory examination.
JaffJHAnthonyJC: Substance related disorders: introduction and overview. In: Kaplan and Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, 8th edn (SadockBJSadockVA, eds). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005; pp 1137–1168.
2.
GelderMMayouRGeddesJ: Problems due to use of alcohol and other psychoactive substances. In: Psychiatry, 2nd edn (GelderMMayouRGeddesJ, eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999; pp 259–287.
3.
AndersonPBaumbergB. The population level of drinking. In: Alcohol in Europe: A Public Health Perspective—Report to the European Commission. London: Institute of Alcohol Studies, 2006; pp 77–85.
4.
AndersonPBaumbergB: Alcohol and the risk of ill-health. In: Alcohol in Europe: A Public Health Perspective—Report to the European Commission. London: Institute of Alcohol Studies, 2006; pp 141–157.
5.
UngerF: Health is wealth—toward a European lead market in health care. Acta Medico-Biotechnica2008; 1: 11–18.
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV®. Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing, 1994; pp 275–296.
8.
ThomB: A social and political history of alcohol. In: International Handbook of Alcohol Dependence and Problems (HeatherNPetersTJStockwellT, eds). Chichester: John Wiley, 2001; pp 15–31.
9.
HeatherN: Pleasures and pains of our favourite drug. In: International Handbook of Alcohol Dependence and Problems (HeatherNPetersTJStockwellT, eds). Chichester: John Wiley, 2001; pp 5–14.
10.
JavorsMABeanPKingTS: Biochemical markers for alcohol consumption. In: Handbook of Clinical Alcoholism Treatment (JohnsonBRuizPGalanterM, eds). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2003; pp 62–79.
StammDHansertEFeuerleinW: Detection and exclusion of alcoholism in men on the basis of clinical laboratory findings. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem1984; 22: 79–96.
13.
ConigraveKMDaviesPHaberP: Traditional markers of excessive alcohol use. Addiction2003; 98 (suppl 2): 31–43.
14.
AntonRFLieberCTabakoffB: Carbohydrate-deficient transferrin and γ-glutamyltransferase for the detection and monitoring of alcohol use: results from a multisite study. Alcohol Clin Exp Res2002; 26: 1215–1222.
15.
KravosMMalešičI: Kinetics and isoforms of serum glutamate dehydrogenase in alcoholics. Alcohol Alcohol2008; 43: 281–286.
16.
KravosMMalešičI: Glutamate dehydrogenase as a marker of alcohol dependence. Alcohol Alcohol2010; 45: 39–44.
17.
SalaspuroM: Carbohydrate-deficient transferrin as compared to other markers of alcoholism: A systematic review. Alcohol1999; 19: 261–271.
18.
MundleGAckermannKMunkesJ: Influence of age, alcohol consumption and abstinence on the sensitivity of carbohydrate-deficient transferrin, γ-glutamyl transferase and mean corpuscular volume. Alcohol Alcohol1999; 34: 760–766.
19.
BendtsenPJonesAWHelanderA: Urinary excretion of methanol and 5-hydroxytryptophol as biochemical markers of recent drinking in the hangover state. Alcohol Alcohol1998; 33: 431–438.
20.
MeerkerkGJNjooKHBongersIM: Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of carbohydrate-deficient transferrin, γ-glutamyltransferase and mean cell volume in a general practice population. Alcohol Clin Exp Res1999; 23: 1052–1059.
21.
LeničMKokolP: Combining classifiers with multimethod approach. In: Second International Conference on Hybrid Intelligent Systems. Soft Computing Systems: Design, Management and Applications (AjithARiuz-Del-SolarJKoppenM, eds). Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2002; pp 374–383.
22.
LavracNKeravnou-PapailiouEZupanB (eds): Intelligent Data Analysis in Medicine and Pharmacology. The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science. Berlin: Springer, 1997.
23.
ThrunSPrattL: Learning to Learn. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.
24.
DietterichTG: Ensemble methods in machine learning. In: First International Workshop on Multiple Classifier Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer, 2000; pp 1–15.
25.
GoldbergDE: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Reading: Addison Wesley, 1989.
26.
IglesiasCJ: The role of hybrid systems in intelligent data management: the case of fuzzy/neural hybrids. Control Engineering Practice1996; 4: 839–845.
27.
DoiK: Computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging: historical review, current status and future potential. Comput Med Imaging Graph2007; 31: 198–211.
28.
KokolPZavršnikJZormanM: Participative design, decision trees, automatic learning and medical decision making. In: Medical Informatics Europe 1996, Studies in Health Technology and Informatics (BrenderJ, ed). Amsterdam: IOS Press, 1996; pp 501–505.
29.
PovalejPLeničMŠtiglicM Molan:A journey through clinical applications of multimethod decision trees. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer, 2003; 1211: pp 249–253.
30.
QuinlanJR: C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.
31.
PodgorelecVKokolPStiglicB: Decision trees: an overview and their use in medicine. J Med Syst2002; 26: 445–463.
32.
SiekmannLBonoraRBurtisCA: IFCC primary reference procedures for the measurement of catalytic activity concentrations of enzymes at 37 °C. Part 1. The concept of reference procedures for the measurement of catalytic activity concentrations of enzymes. Clin Chem Lab Med2002; 40: 631–634.
33.
SiekmannLBonoraRBurtisCA: IFCC primary reference procedures for the measurement of catalytic activity concentrations of enzymes at 37 °C. Part 2. The concept of reference procedures for the measurement of catalytic activity concentrations of enzymes. Clin Chem Lab Med2002; 40: 718–724.
34.
Working Group on Enzymes: Proposal of standard methods for the determination of enzyme catalytic concentrations in serum and plasma at 37 degrees C. III. Glutamate dehydrogenase (l-glutamate: NAD(P)+ oxidoreductase (deaminating), EC 1.4.1.3. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem1992; 30: 493–502.
35.
BaisRPanteghiniM: Principles of clinical enzymology. In: Tietz Textbook of Clinical Chemistry and Molecular Diagnostics, 4th edn (BurtisCAAshwoodERBrunsDE eds). St Louis: Elsevier Saunders, 2006; pp 191–218.
