ArticleScientific reports2025
Clinical predictive fusion network for accurate disease prediction in patient cohorts.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing complexity of healthcare data demands predictive models that are both accurate and interpretable. This study presents the Clinical Predictive Fusion Network (CPFN). This adaptive ensemble learning framework integrates Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and Support Vector Machine classifiers through a validation-driven weighted fusion strategy. The model's adaptive weighting enables it to learn the relative reliability of base classifiers across multimodal patient datasets. CPFN was evaluated using 10-fold stratified cross-validation on disease-specific (cardiology, neurology, diabetes, pulmonology, and oncology) and a synthetically fused multi-disease dataset, achieving up to 93.0 ± 0.4% accuracy on individual datasets and 95.5 ± 0.3% on the combined dataset. Other metrics included a recall of 92.0 ± 0.5%, F1-score of 92.5 ± 0.4%, and ROC-AUC ranging from 0.95 to 0.975 (95% CI, bootstrap 1000 resamples). These results demonstrate that CPFN maintains consistent and generalizable performance across heterogeneous data sources. The model's transparent fusion design and detailed pseudocode enhance reproducibility and clinical applicability, positioning CPFN as a scalable, data-driven decision-support framework for next-generation predictive healthcare systems.
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.