ArticleScientific reports2025
Risk factor identification mechanism for coronary artery disease based on multiple cross-filtering and binary cuckoo search.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major public health concern, necessitating accurate risk factor identification. However, existing methods often suffer from feature preference bias and insufficient multidimensional evaluation, limiting their reliability. To address this, we propose a novel two-stage mechanism integrating multiple cross-filtering and binary cuckoo search (BCS). In the first stage, features are evaluated from three perspectives-relevance (chi-square test), information richness (mutual information), and distance (Fisher score)-to eliminate low-importance features and reduce bias. In the second stage, a random forest classifier optimizes feature selection via BCS, using classification accuracy as the objective function. Empirical analysis on the UCI CAD dataset demonstrates that our method achieves an accuracy of 89%, precision of 0.87, recall of 0.91, F1-score of 0.89, and AUC of 0.93. These values outperform existing homogeneous models (Method II, Method III, Method IV) by at least 3.49%, 3.57%, 3.41%, 3.49%, and 3.33%, respectively. The results highlight superior computational efficiency and predictive performance, making the mechanism a valuable tool for CAD risk assessment.
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.