Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41971597›Full record

ArticleJournal of big data2026

CardiaTics: An explainable AI integrated heart disease diagnosis model with feature engineering and stacked ensemble approach.

Partho Ghose, Hasan Jamil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of big data, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Partho GhoseDepartment of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, 77843 Texas United States.
Hasan JamilDepartment of Computer Science, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive, Moscow, 83844 Idaho United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heart disease is a leading global cause of morbidity and mortality. Accurate and prompt diagnoses are crucial for its effective prevention and management. Integrating multiple machine learning algorithms, this research introduces a stacked ensemble machine learning model, called CardiaTics (stands for Cardiac DiagnosTics), toward improving heart disease detection. We detect outliers and remove them as a first-step to ensure data quality and maintain integrity. Ten distinct machine learning algorithms are then individually applied, culminating in the creation of a stacked ensemble model. We use feature engineering to refine the model further applying three well-known techniques -Pearson correlation, Chi-Square Test (Chi-2), and Recursive Feature Elimination. The implementation of these techniques on the benchmark dataset results in an optimized feature set. Experimental results show that CardiaTics delivers 89.3% accuracy on raw data, and significantly improves its accuracy after feature selection to 93.3%, outperforming the individual classifiers. However, can human professionals rely on algorithms for prediction when the underlying process is not fully understood? To address concerns regarding interpretability, trust, and transparency in black-box predictions, we propose utilizing SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and Explain Like I'm 5 (ELI5) in the second phase to elucidate feature importance in our model. The SHAP summary plots of CardiaTics reveal that the positive and negative contributors to heart disease are comparable, thereby enhancing the model's interpretability and reliability and helping refine the decision-making process.

Indexed as

Ensemble LearningExplainable AIFeature EngineeringHeart diseaseMachine LearningSHAP

Identifiers

PMID41971597
PMCPMC13068695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.