ArticlePloS one2025
Machine learning-based predictive modeling of angina pectoris in an elderly community-dwelling population: Results from the PoCOsteo study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAngina pectoris, a comparatively common complaint among older adults, is a critical warning sign of underlying coronary heart disease. We aimed to develop machine learning-based models using multiple algorithms to predict and identify the predictors of angina pectoris in an elderly community-dwelling population.
methodsMedical records of 2000 participants in the PoCOsteo study between 2018 and 2021 were analyzed. The Rose Angina Questionnaire was used to indicate angina pectoris. Preprocessing was performed using imputation and scaling methods. We developed the following models: logistic regression (LR), multilayer perceptron (MLP), support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), linear and quadratic discriminant analysis (LDA, QDA), decision tree (DT), and two ensemble models: random forest (RF) and adaptive boosting (AdaBoost). To address model complexity and parameter uncertainty, we performed hyperparameter tuning and compared the trade-offs between model performance and interpretability, in addition to applying ten-fold cross-validation. To determine the importance of each feature as a measure of their contribution to the models' performance, we conducted the permutation feature importance technique.
resultsWith a mean age of 62.15 years (± 8.07) and 57.1% being female, 88.4% of the participants did not have angina, 3.6% had probable angina, and 8% had definite angina. The bivariate analysis revealed significant correlations between RAQ and several other variables. LDA, RF, and LR had the highest AUC values, averaging 0.772, 0.770, and 0.764, respectively. These three models outperformed QDA (AUC 0.752), SVM (0.733), AdaBoost (0.726), KNN (0.697), MLP (0.697), and DT (0.644). Permutation feature importance revealed a handful of features that implicated the role of thrombotic vascular diseases, congestive heart failure, renal failure, and anemia. DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrated that LDA, RF, and LR not only provided strong predictive performance but also balanced model complexity with interpretability. The superior performance of these models could be largely attributed to their ability to capture the relevant linear, nonlinear, and interaction effects inherent in the clinical data, as well as the clinical relevance of key predictors like thrombotic vascular diseases, congestive heart failure, renal failure, and anemia. Future studies could incorporate more direct diagnostic methods to test our findings further and enhance the robustness of the predictive models developed.
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.