ArticleScientific reports2023
Classification models for assessing coronary artery disease instances using clinical and biometric data: an explainable man-in-the-loop approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Knowledge of the Impact of Vitamin D in Coronary Artery Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Article
- Between Two Worlds: Investigating the Intersection of Human Expertise and Machine Learning in the Case of Coronary Artery Disease Diagnosis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Integrating Machine Learning in Clinical Practice for Characterizing the Malignancy of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules in PET/CT Screening.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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
The main goal driving this work is to develop computer-aided classification models relying on clinical data to identify coronary artery disease (CAD) instances with high accuracy while incorporating the expert's opinion as input, making it a "man-in-the-loop" approach. CAD is traditionally diagnosed in a definite manner by Invasive Coronary Angiography (ICA). A dataset was created using biometric and clinical data from 571 patients (21 total features, 43% ICA-confirmed CAD instances) along with the expert's diagnostic yield. Five machine learning classification algorithms were applied to the dataset. For the selection of the best feature set for each algorithm, three different parameter selection algorithms were used. Each ML model's performance was evaluated using common metrics, and the best resulting feature set for each is presented. A stratified ten-fold validation was used for the performance evaluation. This procedure was run both using the assessments of experts/doctors as input and without them. The significance of this paper lies in its innovative approach of incorporating the expert's opinion as input in the classification process, making it a "man-in-the-loop" approach. This approach not only increases the accuracy of the models but also provides an added layer of explainability and transparency, allowing for greater trust and confidence in the results. Maximum achievable accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity are 83.02%, 90.32%, and 85.49% when using the expert's diagnosis as input, compared to 78.29%, 76.61%, and 86.07% without the expert's diagnosis. The results of this study demonstrate the potential for this approach to improve the diagnosis of CAD and highlight the importance of considering the role of human expertise in the development of computer-aided classification models.
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.