ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023
Descriptive forest: experiments on a novel tree-structure-generalization method for describing cardiovascular diseases.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA decision tree is a crucial tool for describing the factors related to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and for predicting and explaining it for patients. Notably, the decision tree must be simplified because patients may have different primary topics or factors related to the CVD risk. Many decision trees can describe the data collected from multiple environmental heart disease risk datasets or a forest, where each tree describes the CVD risk for each primary topic.
methodsWe demonstrate the presence of trees, or a forest, using an integrated CVD dataset obtained from multiple datasets. Moreover, we apply a novel method to an association-rule tree to discover each primary topic hidden within a dataset. To generalize the tree structure for descriptive tasks, each primary topic is a boundary node acting as a root node of a C4.5 tree with the least prodigality for the tree structure (PTS). All trees are assigned to a descriptive forest describing the CVD risks in a dataset. A descriptive forest is used to describe each CVD patient's primary risk topics and related factors. We describe eight primary topics in a descriptive forest acquired from 918 records of a heart failure-prediction dataset with 11 features obtained from five datasets. We apply the proposed method to 253,680 records with 22 features from imbalanced classes of a heart disease health-indicators dataset.
resultsThe usability of the descriptive forest is demonstrated by a comparative study (on qualitative and quantitative tasks of the CVD-risk explanation) with a C4.5 tree generated from the same dataset but with the least PTS. The qualitative descriptive task confirms that compared to a single C4.5 tree, the descriptive forest is more flexible and can better describe the CVD risk, whereas the quantitative descriptive task confirms that it achieved higher coverage (recall) and correctness (accuracy and precision) and provided more detailed explanations. Additionally, for these tasks, the descriptive forest still outperforms the C4.5 tree. To reduce the problem of imbalanced classes, the ratio of classes in each subdataset generating each tree is investigated.
conclusionThe results provide confidence for using the descriptive forest.
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.