使用贝叶斯网络推理对肺癌诊断研究（Matlab代码实现）

最新推荐文章于 2025-05-01 20:43:25 发布

Ps.729

最新推荐文章于 2025-05-01 20:43:25 发布

阅读量693

点赞数 20

文章标签： matlab 开发语言

本文链接：https://blog.csdn.net/weixin_67304359/article/details/147634973

版权

👨‍🎓个人主页

💥💥💞💞欢迎来到本博客❤️❤️💥💥

🏆博主优势：🌞🌞🌞博客内容尽量做到思维缜密，逻辑清晰，为了方便读者。

⛳️座右铭：行百里者，半于九十。

📋📋📋本文目录如下：🎁🎁🎁

目录

💥1 概述

贝叶斯网络在肺癌诊断中的研究与应用

一、贝叶斯网络的基本原理与医疗诊断优势

二、肺癌诊断的关键变量与因果建模

（一）危险因素与临床指标

（二）因果网络建模步骤

三、现有研究案例与技术进展

四、算法实现与数据工程

（一）结构学习与参数优化

（二）数据集获取与预处理

五、挑战与未来方向

六、结论

📚2 运行结果

🎉3 参考文献

🌈4 Matlab代码实现

💥1 概述

本文介绍贝叶斯网络示例，用于在单连接图上使用 Pearl 的消息传递算法进行精确概率推理。

贝叶斯网络在肺癌诊断中的研究与应用

一、贝叶斯网络的基本原理与医疗诊断优势

贝叶斯网络（Bayesian Network, BN）是一种基于概率图模型的因果推理工具，通过有向无环图（DAG）表示变量间的依赖关系，并利用贝叶斯定理进行不确定性推理。其核心优势在于：

动态推理能力：支持实时更新概率分布，例如当新症状或检查结果输入时，可动态调整肺癌的后验概率。
多源数据整合：能融合吸烟史、影像学特征、肿瘤标志物等异质性数据，实现综合风险评估。
可解释性：网络结构直观展示变量间的因果关系，如吸烟→慢性炎症→肺癌的病理链条，便于临床决策支持。

在医疗诊断中，贝叶斯网络已成功应用于重症肺炎辨证分型、慢性病风险评估等领域，其推理过程包括：确定诊断变量→构建条件概率表（CPT）→输入证据→计算后验概率→输出最可能的疾病假设。

二、肺癌诊断的关键变量与因果建模

（一）危险因素与临床指标

肺癌诊断涉及多层次变量（表1）：

类别	关键变量
危险因素	吸烟史、环境污染暴露（苯并芘）、职业暴露（石棉）、遗传易感性、慢性阻塞性肺病（COPD）
早期症状	持续性咳嗽、痰中带血、气短、低热
影像学指标	低剂量螺旋CT结节特征（大小、毛刺征、空泡征）
肿瘤标志物	CEA（腺癌）、CYFRA21-1（鳞癌）、NSE（小细胞癌）、ProGRP
病理学特征	组织学分型（腺癌/鳞癌/小细胞癌）、TNM分期

（二）因果网络建模步骤

结构学习：通过专家知识或算法（如基于评分的贪婪搜索）确定变量依赖关系。例如：
- 吸烟→基因突变→肺癌
- 职业暴露→肺部纤维化→肺癌
参数学习：利用最大似然估计或贝叶斯方法计算CPT。例如，吸烟者患肺癌的基线概率可基于流行病学数据设定为15%，而CEA>5 ng/mL时概率提升至60%。
证据整合：输入患者数据（如“吸烟30年+CT显示毛玻璃结节”）后，计算联合概率分布。

三、现有研究案例与技术进展

早期筛查模型
- BOUND模型：山东大学团队基于500万人队列构建的贝叶斯网络，整合吸烟史、环境暴露和临床症状，使肺癌检出率提升6.8倍。
- 多指标联合模型：CEA、CYFRA21-1、ProGRP联合检测的贝叶斯网络诊断效能显著优于单一标志物（AUC 0.92 vs. 0.76）。
病理分型与预后预测
- 生存贝叶斯网络：在威海市立医院队列中，模型预测肺癌生存率的AUC达0.892，校准误差<7%。
- 动态预后模型：结合治疗反应数据，动态调整复发风险概率。
技术优化方向
- 缺失数据处理：采用生存贝叶斯网络处理临床数据缺失问题，在50%缺失率下仍保持较高预测精度。
- 模型轻量化：通过聚类算法简化网络结构（如合并“吸烟史”与“COPD”为复合节点），提升计算效率。

四、算法实现与数据工程

（一）结构学习与参数优化

结构学习算法：
- 约束型方法：基于条件独立性检验（如PC算法）构建初始网络，再通过专家修正。
- 评分型方法：使用BIC或贝叶斯信息准则优化网络结构。
参数敏感性：实验表明，参数精度对诊断准确性影响有限（误差<5%），但需避免零概率（可用极小值替代）。

（二）数据集获取与预处理

公开数据库：
- 基因数据：GEO（GSE7670肺癌基因表达谱）、TCGA（肺腺癌/鳞癌基因组）。
- 影像数据：Lung-PET-CT-Dx（TCIA的CT/PET影像）、CPTAC-LSCC（蛋白质组学数据）。
特征工程：
- 降维处理：使用Lasso回归筛选关键基因标志物（如EGFR突变状态）。
- 标准化：对肿瘤标志物进行log2转换和四分位数标准化，消除批次效应。

五、挑战与未来方向

数据瓶颈：
- 隐私限制：医疗数据共享困难，需发展联邦学习框架下的分布式贝叶斯网络。
- 标注成本：病理学结果依赖活检，可通过半监督学习利用未标注数据。
模型可解释性：需平衡网络复杂度与临床实用性，例如开发可视化工具展示关键推理路径。
多模态融合：整合影像组学（CT纹理特征）与液体活检（ctDNA）数据，构建全维度诊断模型。

六、结论

贝叶斯网络通过动态推理和多源数据整合，为肺癌诊断提供了从早期筛查到预后管理的全链条支持。未来研究需聚焦于跨模态数据融合、轻量化模型设计及临床可解释性优化，以推动其在精准医疗中的广泛应用。

📚2 运行结果

部分代码：

%% Modeling Lung Cancer Diagnosis Using Bayesian Network Inference
% This demo illustrates a simple Bayesian Network example for exact
% probabilistic inference using Pearl's message-passing algorithm.

%% Introduction
% Bayesian networks (or belief networks) are probabilistic graphical models
% representing a set of variables and their dependencies.
% The graphical nature of Bayesian networks and the ability of describing
% uncertainty of complex relationships in a compact manner provide a method
% for modelling almost any type of data.

%%
% Consider the following example, representing a simplified model to help
% diagnose the patients arriving at a respiratory clinic. A history of smoking
% has a direct influence on both whether or not a patient has bronchitis
% and whether or not a patient has lung cancer. In turn, the presence or
% absence of lung cancer has direct influence on the results of a chest
% x-ray test. We are interested in doing probabilistic inference involving
% features that are not directly related, and for which the conditional
% probability cannot be readily computed using a simple application of the
% Bayes' theorem.

%% Creating the Bayesian Network
% A Bayesian network consists of a direct-acyclic graph (DAG) in which
% every node represents a variable and every edge represents a dependency
% between variables. We construct this graph by specifying an adjacency
% matrix where the element on row _i_ and column _j_ contains the number of
% edges directed from node _i_ to node _j_. The variables of the models are
% specified by the graph's nodes: |S| (smoking history), |B| (bronchitis),
% |L| (lung cancer) and |X| (chest x-ray). The variables are discrete and
% can take only two values: true (|t|) or false (|f|).

%=== setup
adj = [0 1 1 0; 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 1; 0 0 0 0]; % adjacency matrix
nodeNames = {'S', 'B', 'L', 'X'}; % nodes
S = 1; B = 2; L = 3; X = 4; % node identifiers
n = numel(nodeNames); % number of nodes
t = 1; f = 2; % true and false
values = cell(1,n); % values assumed by variables
for i = 1:numel(nodeNames)
values{i} = [t f];
end

%%
% In addition to the graph structure, we need to specify the
% parameters of the model, namely the conditional probability
% distribution. For discrete variables, this distribution can be
% represented as a table (Conditional Probability Table, |CPT|), which lists
% the probability that a node takes on each of its value, given the value
% combinations of its parents.

%=== Conditional Probability Table
CPT{S} = [.2 .8];
CPT{B}(:,t) = [.25 .05] ; CPT{B}(:,f) = 1 - CPT{B}(:,t);
% CPT{L}(:,t) = [.03 .0005]; CPT{L}(:,f) = 1 - CPT{L}(:,t);
CPT{L}(:,t) = [.3 .005]; CPT{L}(:,f) = 1 - CPT{L}(:,t);
CPT{X}(:,t) = [.6 .02]; CPT{X}(:,f) = 1 - CPT{X}(:,t);

%% Visualizing the Bayesian Network as a Graph
% We can visualize the network structure using the |biograph|
% object. The properties of nodes and edges can be changed as
% desidered.

%=== draw the network
nodeLabels = {'Smoking', 'Bronchitis', 'Lung Cancer', 'Abnormal Xrays'};
bg = biograph(adj, nodeLabels, 'arrowsize', 4);
set(bg.Nodes, 'shape', 'ellipse');
bgInViewer = view(bg);

%=== save as figure
bgFig = figure;
copyobj(bgInViewer.hgAxes,bgFig)

%=== annotate using the CPT
[xp, xn] = find(adj); % xp = parent id, xn = node id
pa(xn) = xp; % parents
pa(1) = 1; % root is parent of itself

s1 = cell(1,n); s2 = cell(1,n); pos = zeros(n,2);
for i = 2:n
pos(i,:) = bgInViewer.Nodes(i).Position;
s1{i} = sprintf('P(%s|%s=t) = %f', nodeNames{i}, nodeNames{pa(i)}, CPT{i}(1,t));
s2{i} = sprintf('P(%s|%s=f) = %f', nodeNames{i}, nodeNames{pa(i)}, CPT{i}(2,t));
end

pos(1,:) = bgInViewer.Nodes(1).Position; % root
s1{1} = sprintf('P(%s=t) = %f', nodeNames{1}, CPT{1}(1));
s2{1} = ' ';

text(pos(:,1)+2, pos(:,2)-10, s1)
text(pos(:,1)+2, pos(:,2)-15, s2)

%% Initializing the Bayesian Network
% The process of computing the probability distribution of variables given
% specific evidence is called probabilistic inference. By exploiting local
% independencies among nodes, Pearls [1] developed a message-passing algorithm
% for exact inference in singly-connected networks. The algorithm can
% compute the conditional probability of any variable given any set of
% evidence by propagation of beliefs between neighboring nodes. For more
% information about the message-passing algorithm see [2].
% We can create and initiate a Bayesian network for the example under
% consideration as follows:

root = find(sum(adj,1)==0); % root is any node with no parent
[nodes, edges] = bnMsgPassCreate(adj, values, CPT);
[nodes, edges] = bnMsgPassInitiate(nodes, edges, root)

%%
% The algorithm parameters, including the conditional probability of each
% node given the evidence, are stored in the fields of the MATLAB structures
% |nodes| and |edges|. Using the function |customnodedraw|, we can
% visualize the distribution of the conditional probability given an empty
% set of evidence in a series of pie charts, as shown below.

%=== conditional probability given the empty set []
for i = 1:n
disp(['P(' nodeNames{i}, '|[]) = ' num2str(nodes(i).P(1))]);
end

%=== assign relevant info to each node handle
nodeHandles = bgInViewer.Nodes;
for i = 1:n
nodeHandles(i).UserData.Distribution = [nodes(i).P];
end

%=== draw customized nodes
bgInViewer.ShowTextInNodes = 'none';

set(nodeHandles, 'shape','circle')
bgInViewer.CustomNodeDrawFcn = @(node) customnodedraw(node);
%bgInViewer.Scale = .7
bgInViewer.dolayout

%%
% Suppose we are interested in evaluating the likelihood that a patient
% with bronchitis has lung cancer. We instantiate |B=t| (true) and we
% update the network as follows:

%=== inference with B = t
evNode = B;
evValue = t;
[n1, e1, A1, a1] = bnMsgPassUpdate(nodes, edges, [], [], evNode, evValue);

for i = 1:n
disp(['P(' nodeNames{i}, '|B=t) = ' num2str(n1(i).P(1))]);
end

%== plot and compare
figure(); subplot(2,1,1);
x = cat(1,nodes.P);
bar(x, 'stacked'); set(gca, 'xticklabel', nodeNames);
ylabel('Probability');
title('Initialized network with empty evidence set')
legend({'true', 'false'}, 'location', 'SouthEastOutside')
hold on; subplot(2,1,2);
x1 = cat(1,n1.P);
bar(x1, 'stacked'); set(gca, 'xticklabel', nodeNames);
ylabel('Probability');
title('Updated network with evidence B=true')
legend({'true', 'false'}, 'location', 'SouthEastOutside')

%%
% With the observation that the patient has bronchitis (|B = t|), the probability of
% a true condition for all other nodes has increased. In particular, the
% probability of smoking history increases because smoking is one leading
% cause of chronic bronchitis. In turn, because smoking is also associated
% with lung cancer, the probability of lung cancer increases and so does the
% probability of an abnormal chest x-ray test.

%%
% Suppose the patient has not been evaluated for bronchitis but the chest
% x-ray shows some abnormalities. We instantiate |X = t| and we
% intialize again the network with the new evidence.

evNode = X;
evValue = t;
[n2, e2, A2, a2] = bnMsgPassUpdate(nodes, edges, [], [], evNode, evValue);

for i = 1:n
disp(['P(' nodeNames{i}, '|X=t) = ' num2str(n2(i).P(1))]);
end

%%
% Given the observed abnormal x-ray results, the probability of lung cancer
% has increased significantly because of the direct dependency of node |X| (x-rays) on
% node |L| (lung cancer).

%%
% Finally, suppose the patient has both been diagnosed with bronchitis and
% received positive results for his/her chest x-ray. We update the previous
% state of the network (|X| = |t|) with the new evidence(|B| = |t|), as shown below:

evNode = B;
evValue = t;
[n3, e3, A3, a3] = bnMsgPassUpdate(n2, e2, A2, a2, evNode, evValue);

for i = 1:n
disp(['P(' nodeNames{i}, '|B=t,X=t) = ' num2str(n3(i).P(1))]);
end

%%
% We can compare the three situations by plotting the probabilities as bar
% charts. Evidence of bronchitis and evidence of abnormal x-rays increase
% the probability of lung cancer and smoking history, one indirectly and
% the other directly.

figure(); subplot(3,1,1);
bar(x1, 'stacked'); set(gca, 'xticklabel', nodeNames);
ylabel('Probability'); title('Bronchitis diagnosis');
legend({'true', 'false'}, 'location', 'SouthEastOutside')
hold on; subplot(3,1,2);
x2 = cat(1,n2.P);
bar(x2,'stacked'); set(gca, 'xticklabel', nodeNames);
ylabel('Probability'); title('Abnormal x-rays');
legend({'true', 'false'}, 'location', 'SouthEastOutside')
hold on; subplot(3,1,3);
x3 = cat(1,n3.P);
bar(x3, 'stacked'); set(gca, 'xticklabel', nodeNames);
ylabel('Probability'); title('Bronchitis and abnormal x-ray');
legend({'true', 'false'}, 'location', 'SouthEastOutside')
%%
% We can now compare the effect of a positive versus negative bronchitis
% diagnosis in presence of abnormal x-ray results. We instantiate |B = f|
% (false) and compare with previous estimates |B = t| (true).

evNode = B;
evValue = f;
[n4, e4, A4, a4] = bnMsgPassUpdate(n2, e2, [], [], evNode, evValue);

for i = 1:n
disp(['P(' nodeNames{i}, '|B=f,X=t) = ' num2str(n4(i).P(1))]);
end

figure();
bar3([n3(S).P(:,t) n4(S).P(:,t); n3(L).P(:,t) n4(L).P(:,t)]);
colormap(summer); zlabel('Probability');
set(gca,'xticklabel',{'Smoking','Lung Cancer'},'yticklabel', {'With Bronchitis', 'Without Bronchitis'});
set(gca,'xticklabel',{'With Bronchitis','Without Bronchitis'},'yticklabel', {'Smoking','Lung Cancer'});
title('Conditional probabilities with evidence of abnormal x-ray results')
view(50,35);

%%
% When bronchitis is ruled out (|B = f|), the probability of smoking
% history decreases with respect to the case in which the
% bronchitis is confirmed (|B = t|). The effect is propagated across the
% network and affects the probability of lung cancer in a similar manner.

%% Expanding the Network
% Among various symptoms related to lung cancer and bronchitis is shortness
% of breath (dyspnea). We want to model the relationship of this condition
% within the considered Bayesian Network. We introduce a node |D| and modify
% the adjacency matrix accordingly.

%=== add node D to the network
D = 5;
CPT{D}(:,:,t) = [.75 .1; .5 .05];
CPT{D}(:,:,f) = 1 - CPT{D}(:,:,t);
values{D} = [1 2];
adj(end+1,:) = [0 0 0 0];
adj(:,end+1) = [0 1 1 0 0];

%=== draw the updated network
nodeLabels = {'Smoking', 'Bronchitis', 'Lung Cancer', 'Xrays', 'Dyspnea'};
nodeSymbols = {'S', 'B', 'L', 'X', 'D'};
bg = biograph(adj, nodeLabels, 'arrowsize', 4);
nodeHandles= bg.Nodes;
set(nodeHandles, 'shape', 'ellipse');
view(bg)

%%
% With the introduction of node |D|, the network is not singly-connected
% anymore. In fact, there are more than one chain between any two nodes
% (i.e., |S| and |D|). We can check this property by considering the undirected
% graph associated with the network and veryfying that it is not acyclic.

isAcyclic = graphisdag(sparse(adj | adj'))

%%
% In order to use the algorithm for exact inference described above, we
% must transform the new, multiply-connected network into a singly-connected
% network. Several approaches can be used, including clustering of parent
% nodes (in our case |B| and |L|) into a single node as follows.
%
% First, we combine the adjacency matrix entries corresponding to the nodes
% |B| and |L| into one entry associated to node |BL|. The node |BL| can take up to
% four values, corresponding to all possible combinations of values of the
% original nodes |B| and |L|. Then, we update the conditional probability
% distribution considering that |B| and |L| are conditionally independent given
% the node |S|, that is P(BL|S) = P(B,L|S) = P(B|S) * P(L|S).

%=== combine B and L
adj(B,:) = adj(B,:) | adj(L,:);
adj(:,B) = adj(:,B) | adj(:,L);
adj(L,:) = []; adj(:,L) = [];

%=== update the probability distribution accordingly
b1 = kron(CPT{B}(1,:), CPT{L}(1,:));
b2 = kron(CPT{B}(2,:), CPT{L}(2,:));
x = [CPT{X}(1,:) CPT{X}(1,:)];
d = reshape((CPT{D}(:,:,1))', 1, 4);

%=== update the node values
S = 1; BL = 2; X = 3; D = 4;
nodeNames = {'S', 'BL', 'X', 'D'};
tt = 1; tf = 2; ft = 3; ff = 4;
values{BL} = 1:4;
values(L) = [];

%=== create a clustered Conditional Probability Table
cCPT{S} = CPT{S};
cCPT{BL}(t,:) = b1; cCPT{BL}(f,:) = b2;
cCPT{D}(:,t) = d; cCPT{D}(:,f) = 1 - d;
cCPT{X}(:,t) = x; cCPT{X}(:,f) = 1 - x;

%=== create and intiate the net
root = find(sum(adj,1)==0); % root (node with no parent)
[cNodes, cEdges] = bnMsgPassCreate(adj, values, cCPT);
[cNodes, cEdges] = bnMsgPassInitiate(cNodes, cEdges, root);

for i = 1:n
disp(['P(' nodeNames{i}, '|[]) = ' num2str(cNodes(i).P(1))]);
end

%% Drawing the Expanded Network

%=== draw the network
nodeLabels = {'Smoking', 'Bronchitis or Lung Cancer', 'Abnormal X-rays', 'Dyspnea'};
cbg = biograph(adj, nodeNames, 'arrowsize', 4);
set(cbg.Nodes, 'shape', 'ellipse');
cbgInViewer = view(cbg);

%=== assign relevant info to each node handle
cnodeHandles = cbgInViewer.Nodes;
for i = 1:n
cnodeHandles(i).UserData.Distribution = [cNodes(i).P];
end

%=== draw customized nodes
set(cnodeHandles, 'shape','circle')
colormap(summer)
cbgInViewer.ShowTextInNodes = 'none';
cbgInViewer.CustomNodeDrawFcn = @(node) customnodedraw(node);
cbgInViewer.Scale = .7
cbgInViewer.dolayout

%% Performing Exact Inference on Clustered Trees
% Suppose a patient complains of dyspnea (|D=t|). We would
% like to evaluate the likelihood that this symptom is related to either
% lung cancer or bronchitis.

[n5, e5, A5, a5] = bnMsgPassUpdate(cNodes, cEdges, [], [], D, t);

%%
% Because node |B| and node |L| are clustered into the node |BL|, we have to
% calculate their individual conditional probabilities by considering the
% appropriate value combinations. The conditional probabilities
% in |BL| correspond to the following |B| and |L| value combinations: |BL = tt| if
% |B = t| and |L = t|; |BL = tf| if |B = t| and |L = f|; |BL = ft| if |B = f| and |L = t|; |BL
% = ff| if |B = f| and |L = f|. Therefore P(B|evidence) is equal to the sum of
% the first two elements of P(BL|evidence), and similarly, P(L|evidence) is
% equal to the sum of the first and third elements in P(BL|evidence).

p(1,:) = n5(S).P;
p(2,:) = [sum(n5(BL).P([tt,tf])), 1-sum(n5(BL).P([tt,tf]))]; % P(B|evidence)
p(3,:) = [sum(n5(BL).P([tt,ft])), 1-sum(n5(BL).P([tt,ft]))]; % P(L|evidence)
p(4,:) = n5(X).P;
p(5,:) = n5(D).P;

for i = 1:5
disp(['P(' nodeSymbols{i}, '|D=t) = ' num2str(p(i,1))]);
end
%%
% When dyspnea is present, both the likelihood of bronchitis and lung cancer
% increase. This makes sense, since both illnesses have dyspnea as
% symptom and the patient is indeed exhibiting this symptom.

%% Explaining Away the Lung Cancer
% As we can see in the graph, the
% dyspnea symptom has dependency both on bronchitis and lung cancer.
% Consider the effect of a bronchitis diagnosis on the likelihood of lung
% cancer.

%=== adjust the CPT to reflect B = 1 before clustering into BL node
B = 2; L = 3;
CPT{B}(:,1) = [1 1] ; CPT{B}(:,2) = 1 - CPT{B}(:,1);
b1 = kron(CPT{B}(1,:), CPT{L}(1,:));
b2 = kron(CPT{B}(2,:), CPT{L}(2,:));

%=== create a clustered Conditional Probability Table
BL = 2;
cCPT{BL}(1,:) = b1; cCPT{BL}(2,:) = b2;

%=== instantiate for F = 1
[n7, e7, A7, a7] = bnMsgPassUpdate(cNodes, cEdges, [], [], D, t);
w(1,:) = n7(S).P;
w(2,:) = [sum(n7(BL).P([tt,tf])), 1-sum(n7(BL).P([tt,tf]))]; % P(B|evidence)
w(3,:) = [sum(n7(BL).P([tt,ft])), 1-sum(n7(BL).P([tt,ft]))]; % P(L|evidence)
w(4,:) = n7(X).P;
w(5,:) = n7(D).P;

for i = 1:5
disp(['P(' nodeSymbols{i}, '|B=t,D=t) = ' num2str(w(i,1))]);
end

%%
% When a patient complains of dyspnea and is diagnosed with bronchitis, the
% conditional probability of lung cancer is lower.
%
% Consider now the effect of a lung cancer diagnosis on the likellihood of
% bronchitis.

%=== adjust the CPT to reflect L = 1 before clustering into BL node
B = 2; L = 3;
CPT{B}(:,t) = [.25 .05] ; CPT{B}(:,f) = 1 - CPT{B}(:,t);
CPT{L}(:,t) = [1 1]; CPT{L}(:,f) = 1 - CPT{L}(:,t);

b1 = kron(CPT{B}(t,:), CPT{L}(t,:));
b2 = kron(CPT{B}(f,:), CPT{L}(f,:));

BL = 2;
cCPT{BL}(t,:) = b1; cCPT{BL}(f,:) = b2;

%=== instantiate for D = 1
[n8, e8, A8, a8] = bnMsgPassUpdate(cNodes, cEdges, [], [], D, t);
v(1,:) = n8(S).P;
v(2,:) = [sum(n8(BL).P([tt,tf])), 1-sum(n8(BL).P([tt,tf]))]; % P(B|evidence)
v(3,:) = [sum(n8(BL).P([tt,ft])), 1-sum(n8(BL).P([tt,ft]))]; % P(L|evidence)
v(4,:) = n8(X).P;
v(5,:) = n8(D).P;

for i = 1:5
disp(['P(' nodeSymbols{i}, '|L=t,D=t) = ' num2str(v(i,1))]);
end

%%
% If a patient is diagnosed with lung cancer in presence of
% dyspnea, the likelihood of bronchitis decreases significantly.
% This phenomenon is called "explaining away" and refers to the situations
% in which the chances of one cause decrease significantly when the chances
% of the competing cause increase.

%%
% We can observe the "explaining away" phenomenon in the two situations
% described above by comparing the conditional probabilities of node |L| and
% |B| in the two cases. When the evidence for |B| is high, the likelihood
% of |L| is relatively low, and viceversa, when the evidence for |L| is high, the
% likelihood of |B| is low.

y = [w(2:3,1) v(2:3,1)];
figure();
bar(y);
set(gca, 'xticklabel', {'Bronchitis', 'Lung Cancer'});
ylabel('Probability'); title('Explaining away with evidence of dyspnea')
legend('B = t', 'L = t', 'location', 'SouthEastOutside');
colormap(summer)