ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of heart disease prediction using logistic regression, SVM, KNN, and random forest with cross-validation for improved accuracy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI based ECG data recovery and cardiovascular diseases classification (CEDRC-network).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Interpretable Machine Learning to Predict Metformin-Induced Vitamin B12 Deficiency: Association with Glycemic Control and Neuropathic Symptoms.Metabolites · 2026Article
- Identification and clinical evaluation of diagnostic biomarkers for ischemic cardiomyopathy based on machine learning and transcriptomics.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Prioritization of patients at risk of heart attack using a novel full-objective ITARA based on Random Forest and Decision tree.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Predictive analysis of influencing factors on HIV testing behavior among college students in Shanxi, China.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Assessing psychological resilience and its influencing factors in the MSM population by machine learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Identification of Shared Diagnostic Biomarkers LCN2 and DUOX2 for Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Cholangiocarcinoma Through Integrative Bioinformatics and Machine Learning.Journal of inflammation research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2026-04-20Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Concerns/Issues about Authorship/Affiliation · Objections by Author(s) · · See also: https://pubpeer.com/publications/F99534C9F1E4FD57155ECD575236D1
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This primary research paper emphasizes cross-validation, where data samples are reshuffled in each iteration to form randomized subsets divided into n folds. This method improves model performance and achieves higher accuracy than the baseline model. The novelty lies in the data preparation process, where numerical features were imputed using the mean, categorical features were imputed using chi-square methods, and normalization was applied. This research study involves transforming the original datasets and comparative model analysis of four Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), and Random Forest (RF) cross-validation methodologies to heart disease open datasets. The objective is to easily identify the average accuracy of model predictions and subsequently make recommendations for model selection based on data preprocessing cross-validation model increased (5 to 14%) more than baseline model for best model selection. From comparing each model's accuracy scores, it is found that the logistic regression and k-nearest neighbor models achieved the highest accuracy of 81% among the four models when single accuracy is a concern. However, the random forest model summary statistics attained an F1 score of 95%, precision (96%), and recall (97%), indicating the highest overall macro accuracy score. These findings can be further compared using learning curve validation. Conversely, the logistic regression model exhibited the lowest accuracy of 84% among the four machine learning models. However, this research does not cover hyperparameter optimization, which could potentially improve model performance.
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.