Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22327386›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2012

Accurate prediction of coronary artery disease using reliable diagnosis system.

Indrajit Mandal, N Sairam

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Indrajit MandalSchool of Computing, SASTRA University, Thanjavur, India. indrajit@cse.sastra.edu
N Sairam
SASTRA University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper presents more accurate and reliable computational methods for aiding the treatment of people with coronary artery disease. New techniques are introduced for improved evaluation and distinguish cardiac disease affected patients from the healthy controls. Experiments are conducted with high level of error tolerance rate and confidence level at 95% and 99% and established the results with corrected T-tests based on comparison of various performance measures. Normal kernel density estimator is used for visual distinction of cardiac controls. A new ensemble learning method comprising of Bayesian network as classifier and Principal components method as the projection filter with ranker search is used for the relevant feature selection. Analysis of each model is performed and discusses major findings and concludes with promising results compared to the related works. Multiple Correspondence analysis is used for exploring heart disease variable's relationships. Robust machine learning algorithms used are Rotation forests, MultiBoosting, Sparse multinomial logistic regression for better performance with fine tuning of their involved parameters. The work aims at improving the software reliability and quality of diagnosis of cardiac disease with robust inference system. To the best of our knowledge, from the literature survey, experimental results presented in this work show best results with supportive statistical inference.

Indexed as

Age FactorsAlgorithmsBayes TheoremBlood GlucoseBlood PressureCholesterolCoronary Artery DiseaseDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedElectrocardiographyHumansNeural Networks, ComputerPrincipal Component AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentSex FactorsSoftware DesignBlood GlucoseCholesterol

Identifiers

PMID22327386
OpenAlexW1990425209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.