ArticleScientific reports2025
Predator crow search optimization with explainable AI for cardiac vascular disease classification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The proposed framework optimizes Explainable AI parameters, combining Predator crow search optimization to refine the predictive model's performance. To prevent overfitting and enhance feature selection, an information acquisition-based technique is introduced, improving the model's robustness and reliability. An enhanced U-Net model employing context-based partitioning is proposed for precise and automatic left ventricular segmentation, facilitating quantitative assessment. The methodology was validated using two datasets: the publicly available ACDC challenge dataset and the imATFIB dataset from internal clinical research, demonstrating significant improvements. The comparative analysis confirms the superiority of the proposed framework over existing cardiovascular disease prediction methods, achieving remarkable results of 99.72% accuracy, 96.47% precision, 98.6% recall, and 94.6% F1 measure. Additionally, qualitative analysis was performed to evaluate the interpretability and clinical relevance of the model's predictions, ensuring that the outputs align with expert medical insights. This comprehensive approach not only advances the accuracy of CVD predictions but also provides a robust tool for medical professionals, potentially improving patient outcomes through early and precise diagnosis.
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.