ArticleTechnology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine2024
Comparative analysis of supervised learning algorithms for prediction of cardiovascular diseases.
Article in Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine, 2024. 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.
- From linear models to deep learning: statistical advances in genomic selection for animal breeding.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Feature Selection Strategies for ICU Mortality Prediction Using Chest Radiographic, Radiomic, and Demographic Features.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Wearable Devices and Machine Learning in Cardiovascular Monitoring: Current Evidence and Future Directions for Precision Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Development and validation of an inflammatory index-based interpretable machine learning model for mortality risk stratification in hemodialysis patients.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Enhanced machine learning and hybrid ensemble approaches for Coronary Heart Disease prediction.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the advent of artificial intelligence technology, machine learning algorithms have been widely used in the area of disease prediction.
objectiveCardiovascular disease (CVD) seriously jeopardizes human health worldwide, thereby needing the establishment of an effective CVD prediction model that can be of great significance for controlling the risk of the disease and safeguarding the physical and mental health of the population.
methodsConsidering the UCI heart disease dataset as an example, initially, a single machine learning prediction model was constructed. Subsequently, six methods such as Pearson, chi-squared, RFE and LightGBM were comprehensively used for the feature screening. On the basis of the base classifiers, Soft Voting fusion and Stacking fusion was carried out to build a prediction model for cardiovascular diseases, in order to realize an early warning and disease intervention for high-risk populations. To address the data imbalance problem, the SMOTE method was adopted to process the data set, and the prediction effect of the model was analyzed using multi-dimensional and multi-indicators.
resultsIn the single classifier model, the MLP algorithm performed optimally on the preprocessed heart disease dataset. After feature selection, five features eliminated. The ENSEM_SV algorithm that combines the base classifiers to determine the prediction results by soft voting on the results of the classifiers achieved the optimal value on five metrics such as Accuracy, Jaccard_Score, Hamm_Loss, AUC, etc., and the AUC value reached 0.951. The RF, ET, GBDT, and LGB algorithms were employed in the first stage sub-model composed of base classifiers. The AB algorithm was selected as the second stage model, and the ensemble algorithm ENSEM_ST, obtained by Stacking fusion of the two stages exhibited the best performance on 7 indicators such as Accuracy, Sensitivity, F1_Score, Mathew_Corrcoef, etc., and the AUC reached 0.952. Furthermore, a comparison of the algorithms' classification effects based on different training set occupancy was carried out. The results indicated that the prediction performance of both the fusion models was better than the single models, and the overall effect of ENSEM_ST fusion was stronger than the ENSEM_SV fusion.
conclusionsThe fusion model established in this study improved the overall classification accuracy and stability of the model to a significant extent. It has a good application value in the predictive analysis of CVD diagnosis, and can provide a valuable reference in the disease diagnosis and intervention strategies.
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.