# Intelligent System Using Data to Support Decision-Making
## 3 Results
### CDSS-EQCM Testing
Clinicians then completed a 10-item usability questionnaire [47], the System Usability Scale (SUS), rating learnability, transparency, and overall satisfaction, thereby confirming the CDSS-EQCM's usability and readiness for clinical integration:  
1. I think that I would like to use this system frequently. 2. I found the system unnecessarily complex. 3. I thought the system was easy to use. 4. I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system. 5. I found the various functions in this system were well-integrated. 6. I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system. 7. I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly. 8. I found the system very cumbersome to use. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**TOPSIS Method**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Borda Count**} \\ \hline  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Classification** \\ **Model** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Pi Score** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Classification** \\ **Model** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Borda Score** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
1 & SVM SHAP & 0.9686 & RF SHAP & 48 \\ \hline
2 & RF SHAP & 0.9525 & RF LIME & 41 \\ \hline
3 & k-NN SHAP & 0.9413 & DT SHAP & 38 \\ \hline
4 & LR SHAP & 0.9308 & LR SHAP & 28 \\ \hline
5 & DT SHAP & 0.9115 & DT LIME & 27 \\ \hline
6 & RF LIME & 0.6660 & k-NN SHAP & 27 \\ \hline
7 & LR LIME & 0.4980 & SVM SHAP & 25 \\ \hline
8 & k-NN LIME & 0.4544 & LR LIME & 21 \\ \hline
9 & DT LIME & 0.3696 & k-NN LIME & 9 \\ \hline
10 & SVM LIME & 0.0516 & SVM LIME & 6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Resulting model ranking for both methods. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Metric** & **Weights** \\ \hline Separability & 0.0250 \\ Stability & 0.0371 \\ Accuracy & 0.2595 \\ Response time & 0.2786 \\ Understandability & 0.2946 \\ User experience & 0.1052 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: The resulting weights used in the evaluation calculation by the TOPSIS method. I felt very confident using the system. I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system. The participants completed the SUS: they rated ten items on a five-point Likert scale ranging from \"strongly disagree\" (1 point) to \"strongly agree\" (5 points). For the odd-numbered questions (1, 3, 5, 7, and 9), we summed the scores and then subtracted 5 from the total to obtain (X). For the even-numbered questions (2, 4, 6, 8, and 10), we summed the scores and subtracted that total from 25 to obtain (Y). Finally, we added the two results (X + Y) and multiplied the sum by 2.5 to get the final SUS score. Individual responses of the doctors from the questionnaire are displayed in Table 7.  
We calculated the final SUS score separately for each doctor based on their responses:  
\[ \begin{array}{l}X1=(5+4+5+4+4)-5=17\\ Y1=25-(2+2+1+2+2)=16\\ SUS\ score1=(17+16)\times 2.5=82.5\end{array} \]  
The final SUS score for all doctors is shown in Table 8.  
The variation of the scores between doctors was at standard deviation (\(\pm 5.2\)) and range (68-82) for the overall SUS score. Based on the questionnaire responses of SUS, we obtained a score of 75, which indicates good usability. The results confirmed that the system is not only functional and effective but also highly usable, as evidenced by the achieved SUS score of 75. We noted that, while a mean SUS of 75 indicates \"good\" usability, the observed spread--especially scores below 70--highlights areas for improvement. This suggests that the system is suitable for practical use and has potential for future development.