ArticlePloS one2025
An interpretable LightGBM model for predicting coronary heart disease: Enhancing clinical decision-making with machine learning.
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 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.
- [Development and validation of a machine learning-based prediction model for fatty liver in Wilson disease].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2026Article
- Leakage-Safe Precision-Aware Dual-Branch FT-Transformer for Population-Scale Heart Disease Risk Prediction.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Accurate estimation of hip range of motion using MediaPipe and inertial sensors with machine learning models.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Generative adversarial networks and hyperparameter-optimized XGBoost for enhanced heart disease prediction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary Heart Disease (CHD) is one of the major burdens of cardiovascular diseases worldwide. Traditional diagnostic methods, such as coronary angiography and electrocardiogram, face challenges including high costs, subjectivity, and high misdiagnosis rates. To address these issues, this study proposes a prediction framework for CHD based on the LightGBM algorithm, aiming to improve the accuracy and interpretability of CHD risk prediction.
methodsThis study utilized three publicly available datasets: BRFSS_2015, Framingham, and Z-Alizadeh Sani. The BRFSS_2015 dataset was used for model training, while the Framingham and Z-Alizadeh Sani datasets were employed for validation. Data preprocessing included cleaning, feature engineering, and handling missing values. The LightGBM model was selected for its efficiency and performance, and SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values were used to enhance model interpretability. Model performance was evaluated using metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and AUROC. A CHD scoring system was developed based on the model's predictions to assist clinicians in risk assessment.
resultsThe LightGBM model demonstrated excellent performance, achieving an accuracy of 90.60% and an AUROC of 81.06% on the BRFSS_2015 dataset. After parameter tuning, the model's accuracy improved to 90.61%, and the AUROC increased to 81.11%. On the Framingham dataset, the accuracy improved from 83.96% to 85.26%, and the AUROC increased from 62.86% to 67.37%. On the Z-Alizadeh Sani dataset, the accuracy improved from 78.69% to 80.33%, and the precision increased from 74.40% to 76.36%.
conclusionsSHAP analysis revealed that age, smoking status, diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol were the most influential features in predicting CHD risk. The developed CHD scoring system provided a user-friendly tool for clinicians to assess patient risk levels effectively.
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.