ArticlePloS one2022
Comparative study on the performance of different classification algorithms, combined with pre- and post-processing techniques to handle imbalanced data, in the diagnosis of adult patients with familial hypercholesterolemia.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Meta single-cell atlas and xQTL post-GWAS analysis revealed the pathogenic features of thyroid cancer for target therapy: A multi-omics study.Cancer gene therapy · 2026Article
- Assessment of health conditions from patient electronic health record portals vs self-reported questionnaires: an analysis of the INSPIRE study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- Predictive modeling for identification of older adults with high utilization of health and social services.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2024Article
- Applications of machine learning in familial hypercholesterolemia.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Predicting health insurance uptake in Kenya using Random Forest: An analysis of socio-economic and demographic factors.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an inherited disorder of cholesterol metabolism. Current criteria for FH diagnosis, like Simon Broome (SB) criteria, lead to high false positive rates. The aim of this work was to explore alternative classification procedures for FH diagnosis, based on different biological and biochemical indicators. For this purpose, logistic regression (LR), naive Bayes classifier (NB), random forest (RF) and extreme gradient boosting (XGB) algorithms were combined with Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE), or threshold adjustment by maximizing Youden index (YI), and compared. Data was tested through a 10 × 10 repeated k-fold cross validation design. The LR model presented an overall better performance, as assessed by the areas under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) and precision-recall (AUPRC) curves, and several operating characteristics (OC), regardless of the strategy to cope with class imbalance. When adopting either data processing technique, significantly higher accuracy (Acc), G-mean and F1 score values were found for all classification algorithms, compared to SB criteria (p < 0.01), revealing a more balanced predictive ability for both classes, and higher effectiveness in classifying FH patients. Adjustment of the cut-off values through pre or post-processing methods revealed a considerable gain in sensitivity (Sens) values (p < 0.01). Although the performance of pre and post-processing strategies was similar, SMOTE does not cause model's parameters to loose interpretability. These results suggest a LR model combined with SMOTE can be an optimal approach to be used as a widespread screening tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.