Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39972004›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

An extensive experimental analysis for heart disease prediction using artificial intelligence techniques.

D Rohan, G Pradeep Reddy, Y V Pavan Kumar, K Purna Prakash, Ch Pradeep Reddy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

D RohanSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, VIT-AP University, Amaravati, 522241, Andhra Pradesh, India.
G Pradeep ReddyDepartment of Information and Communication Technology, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, Karnataka, India. pradeep.reddy@manipal.edu.
Y V Pavan KumarSchool of Electronics Engineering, VIT-AP University, Amaravati, 522241, Andhra Pradesh, India.
K Purna PrakashDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, Vaddeswaram, 522502, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Ch Pradeep ReddyDepartment of Computer Science, Chandigarh Engineering College, Chandigarh Group of Colleges Jhanjeri, Mohali, 140307, Punjab, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The heart is an important organ that plays a crucial role in maintaining life. Unfortunately, heart disease is one of the major causes of mortality globally. Early and accurate detection can significantly improve the situation by enabling preventive measures and personalized healthcare recommendations. Artificial intelligence is emerging as a powerful tool for healthcare applications, particularly in predicting heart diseases. Researchers are actively working on this, but challenges remain in achieving accurate heart disease prediction. Therefore, experimenting with various models to identify the most effective one for heart disease prediction is crucial. In this view, this paper addresses this need by conducting an extensive investigation of various models. The proposed research considered 11 feature selection techniques and 21 classifiers for the experiment. The feature selection techniques considered for the research are Information Gain, Chi-Square Test, Fisher Discriminant Analysis (FDA), Variance Threshold, Mean Absolute Difference (MAD), Dispersion Ratio, Relief, LASSO, Random Forest Importance, Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), and Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The classifiers considered for the research are Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Gaussian Naïve Bayes (GNB), XGBoost, AdaBoost, Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD), Gradient Boosting Classifier, Extra Tree Classifier, CatBoost, LightGBM, Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), Bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM), Bidirectional GRU (BiGRU), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), and Hybrid Model (CNN, RNN, LSTM, GRU, BiLSTM, BiGRU). Among all the extensive experiments, XGBoost outperformed all others, achieving an accuracy of 0.97, precision of 0.97, sensitivity of 0.98, specificity of 0.98, F1 score of 0.98, and AUC of 0.98.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHeart DiseasesAlgorithmsHumansPrincipal Component AnalysisSupport Vector MachineArtificial intelligenceDeep learningFeature selectionHeart disease predictionMachine learningPerformance metricsXGBoost

Identifiers

PMID39972004
PMCPMC11839996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.