## 3 Results  
The results of the diagnostic study consist of the health state assessments of 83 patients. Part of these results is presented as an example in Table 2. The table contains verbal diagnostic reports (high, medium, small, none) with their estimates of possible certainty in  
Figure 6: Screenshots of CDSS symptoms estimation questionnaires: (**a**) MNASF scale for malnutrition; (**b**) EAT-10 screening tool for orophnggeal dysphagia; (**c**) Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia Scale; (**d**) questionnaire formed using the ESPEN guidelines on clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatric dehydration. Figure 7: The CDSS screenshot of diagnostic advice. the range [0-1] provided by the CDSS. The assessments of the resident geriatricians and the expert geriatricians are presented in the form of 1 or 0, which means that the syndrome is diagnosed or not. These data were used for further processing and estimation of the effectiveness of the CDSS using ROC analysis. The study was conducted by geriatric physicians with different experiences: first- and second-year resident geriatricians and expert geriatricians (professors with more than 20 years of experience). Because the CDSS is intended to provide advice to an inexperienced geriatrician or general practitioner, the study assessed the precision of the diagnoses provided by the CDSS and resident physicians. The diagnoses of expert geriatricians are considered the gold standard in this case. For evaluation of the performance of the proposed CDSS, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was used by calculating accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The threshold values for the ROC curves were selected according to the risk levels and their certainties provided by the CDSS. The lowest threshold value corresponds to \"small risk with certainty 0.5\", while the highest threshold value corresponds to \"medium risk with certainty 1.0\". For example, \"medium risk with certainty 0.7\" threshold value means that medium risks with certainty more than 0.7 and high risks with any certainty indicate disorder (positive condition), while medium risks with certainty less or equal than 0.7, small risks with any certainty and no risks with any certainty are classified as negative condition (no disorder). as shown in Figure 8. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Subject’s No.**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Assessments of the Syndromes Given by the CDSS (Threat, Certainty)**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Assessments of the Syndromes Given by Resident Geeriatrics**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Assessments of the Syndromes Given by Expert Geeriatrics**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & **M** & **OD** & **D** & **DH** & **M** & **OD** & **D** & **DH** & **M** & **OD** & **D** & **DH** \\ \hline
1 & Small (0.583) & Small (0.901) & None (0.86) & Medium (0.738) & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \hline
2 & High (0.724) & Small (0.921) & Small (0.599) & Medium (0.971) & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \hline
3 & Small (0.8) & Small (0.95) & None (0.901) & Medium (0.773) & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \hline
4 & High (0.724) & Small (0.955) & Small (0.559) & Small (0.535) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
5 & Medium (0.616) & Medium (0.835) & Small (0.719) & Medium (0.613) & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\ \hline
6 & Medium (0.99) & Small (0.75) & None (0.749) & Medium (0.627) & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \hline \(\cdots\) & \(\cdots\) & \(\cdots\) & \(\cdots\) & \(\cdots\) & \(\cdots\) & \(\cdots\) & \(\cdots\) & \(\cdots\) & \(\cdots\) & \(\cdots\) \\ \hline
82 & Medium (0.677) & Medium (0.958) & Small (0.58) & Medium (0.794) & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\ \hline
83 & Medium (0.605) & Small (0.669) & None (0.887) & Medium (0.605) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results of the assessments of the proposed CDSS, the resident geriatricians, and expert geriatricians; M—malnutrition, OD— oropharyngeal dysplasia, D—eating disorders in dementia, DH—dehydration.