ArticleScientific reports2024
Revolutionizing heart disease prediction with quantum-enhanced machine learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- PerioTwin-DeltaCRED: a validation-aware physiological digital twin for longitudinal periodontal treatment response prediction.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Quantum computing and the implementation of precision medicine.NPJ genomic medicine · 2025Review
- Quantum Cardiovascular Medicine: From Hype to Hope-A Critical Review of Real-World Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- A systematic review of machine learning in heart disease prediction.Turkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent developments in quantum technology have opened up new opportunities for machine learning algorithms to assist the healthcare industry in diagnosing complex health disorders, such as heart disease. In this work, we summarize the effectiveness of QuEML in heart disease prediction. To evaluate the performance of QuEML against traditional machine learning algorithms, the Kaggle heart disease dataset was used which contains 1190 samples out of which 53% of samples are labeled as positive samples and rest 47% samples are labeled as negative samples. The performance of QuEML was evaluated in terms of accuracy, precision, recall, specificity, F1 score, and training time against traditional machine learning algorithms. From the experimental results, it has been observed that proposed quantum approaches predicted around 50.03% of positive samples as positive and an average of 44.65% of negative samples are predicted as negative whereas traditional machine learning approaches could predict around 49.78% of positive samples as positive and 44.31% of negative samples as negative. Furthermore, the computational complexity of QuEML was measured which consumed average of 670 µs for its training whereas traditional machine learning algorithms could consume an average 862.5 µs for training. Hence, QuEL was found to be a promising approach in heart disease prediction with an accuracy rate of 0.6% higher and training time of 192.5 µs faster than that of traditional machine learning approaches.
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.