ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Between Two Worlds: Investigating the Intersection of Human Expertise and Machine Learning in the Case of Coronary Artery Disease Diagnosis.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Coronary artery disease (CAD) presents a significant global health burden, with early and accurate diagnostics crucial for effective management and treatment strategies. This study evaluates the efficacy of human evaluators compared to a Random Forest (RF) machine learning model in predicting CAD risk. It investigates the impact of incorporating human clinical judgments into the RF model's predictive capabilities. We recruited 606 patients from the Department of Nuclear Medicine at the University Hospital of Patras, Greece, from 16 February 2018 to 28 February 2022. Clinical data inputs included age, sex, comprehensive cardiovascular history (including prior myocardial infarction and revascularisation), CAD predisposing factors (such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, diabetes, and peripheral arteriopathy), baseline ECG abnormalities, and symptomatic descriptions ranging from asymptomatic states to angina-like symptoms and dyspnea on exertion. The diagnostic accuracies of human evaluators and the RF model (when trained with datasets inclusive of human judges' assessments) were comparable at 79% and 80.17%, respectively. However, the performance of the RF model notably declined to 73.76% when human clinical judgments were excluded from its training dataset. These results highlight a potential synergistic relationship between human expertise and advanced algorithmic predictions, suggesting a hybrid approach as a promising direction for enhancing CAD diagnostics.
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.