ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Optimized machine learning framework for cardiovascular disease diagnosis: a novel ethical perspective.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. 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.
- CardioMetaHybridOptimizer as a behaviorally adaptive multi-phase metaheuristic framework for interpretable cardiovascular disease diagnosis.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Development of AI based behavioral feature patterns on influencing asymptomatic cardiovascular disease attributes: a dataset standardization approach.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Multi-Class Intrusion Detection System for DDoS Attacks in IoT Networks Using Deep Learning and Transformers.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Unified Hybrid Model for Cardiovascular Risk Prediction: Merging Statistical, Kernel-Based and Neural Approaches.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Alignment of advanced cutting-edge technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a significant driving force to achieve greater precision and timeliness in identifying cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). However, it is difficult to achieve high accuracy and reliability in CVD diagnostics due to complex clinical data and the selection and modeling process of useful features. Therefore, this paper studies advanced AI-based feature selection techniques and the application of AI technologies in the CVD classification. It uses methodologies such as Chi-square, Info Gain, Forward Selection, and Backward Elimination as an essence of cardiovascular health indicators into a refined eight-feature subset. This study emphasizes ethical considerations, including transparency, interpretability, and bias mitigation. This is achieved by employing unbiased datasets, fair feature selection techniques, and rigorous validation metrics to ensure fairness and trustworthiness in the AI-based diagnostic process. In addition, the integration of various Machine Learning (ML) models, encompassing Random Forest (RF), XGBoost, Decision Trees (DT), and Logistic Regression (LR), facilitates a comprehensive exploration of predictive performance. Among this diverse range of models, XGBoost stands out as the top performer, achieving exceptional scores with a 99% accuracy rate, 100% recall, 99% F1-measure, and 99% precision. Furthermore, we venture into dimensionality reduction, applying Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to the eight-feature subset, effectively refining it to a compact six-attribute feature subset. Once again, XGBoost shines as the model of choice, yielding outstanding results. It achieves accuracy, recall, F1-measure, and precision scores of 98%, 100%, 98%, and 97%, respectively, when applied to the feature subset derived from the combination of Chi-square and Forward Selection methods.
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.